Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Housing Benefit

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the domestic ratepayers in (a) Liverpool, (b) Manchester, (c) Stockport and (d) England and Wales as a whole receive housing benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): We estimate that in 1984–85 the proportion of ratepayers receiving a rate rebate in the four areas was approximately 50 per cent., 57 per cent., 31 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the desirability of a reform of the rating system on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Major: I concur with that point, as housing benefit now goes a long way up the income scale and many of us feel that it goes an undesirably long way up that scale.

Mr. Eastham: Do those figures project an idea to the Minister of the sheer poverty that is being experienced in some major cities? Is it not about time that there was a complete review of the benefits and subsidies that are a burden on the ratepayer? Ought they not to be a burden on the Government?

Mr. Major: The figures show that housing benefit now goes to one household in three, and that is a remarkable statistic. The benefit has doubled in real terms over the past five years and is still a substantial amount of money.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister said that 57 per cent. of ratepayers in Manchester receive housing benefit. Is that not, even for this Government, a shocking indictment showing the poverty level of wages in Manchester and the number of people who are dependent on state benefits and who have to claim housing benefit? Should not the Government be doing something about poverty in the urban areas?

Mr. Major: I am not sure to what extent the hon. Gentleman's point arises directly from the main question. However, what clearly arises from the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer is the extent to which housing benefit exists to help those people.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister's answer not show, first, how rents and poverty have increased under this Government; secondly, that the only way for someone to

get housing benefit reasonably high up the income scale is if their rent is well above average; and, thirdly, how much damage will be caused by the proposal to make all such people pay 20 per cent. of their rates?

Mr. Major: I do not believe that any of those propositions is correct. Even after the changes in housing benefit, expenditure is still above the 1979 levels. Future proposals for local government finance are still under consultation and we must wait to see what emerges from them.

Nurses and Midwives (Pay)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to differentiate between the rates of pay of state registered nurses and state registered midwives; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The pay of National Health Service nursng and midwifery staff is determined following the recommendations of an independent review body.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that state registered nurses have to undertake an 18-month course on staff nurse pay to become qualified midwives? Is he further aware that, as they get no extra pay for qualifying as midwives, fewer nurses are undertaking the course? With the birth rate rising, and expected to rise more steeply in the 1990s, where will we find the midwives to deliver those babies? Will we have to adopt natural childbirth?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I said, midwives' pay is being considered by the independent review body, and it would not be right for me to comment upon that. In connection with more general questions, I can tell my hon. Friend that a joint review between the management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council is under way, and it is examining nursing and clinical grading structures. That will, of course, include midwives.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give us an assurance that in future he will fully fund National Health Service pay settlements, especially those relating to care workers? Is he aware that it causes great anxiety and consternation to nurses and midwives when they are told that their pay rise will be taken out of the money available for the care of patients under their charge?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, Sir. The funding of the National Health Service is clearly understood by the House. The funds available for the next financial year are set out in the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Marlow: How does the pay of nurses and that of the professions allied to medicine compare with the pay of school teachers? Has my right hon. Friend received any indication from those professions that if the teachers should have a much enhanced salary review the nurses and professions allied to medicine would not wish the same?

Mr. Hayhoe: If my hon. Friend puts down a question, I should be glad to give him that information.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that people in the profession, including nurses, midwives and health visitors, are becoming disillusioned because they do not have a realistic pay structure and an adequate career


structure? Will he give some assurances that nurses, midwives and health visitors will receive proper remuneration, worthy of their value to society?

Mr. Hayhoe: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the position now, what must he have thought at the end of the last Labour Government, because since then nurses' pay has been increased by over 30 per cent. in real terms?

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend consider that one of the reasons why fewer nurses are going into midwifery may be that they have to provide their own cars and are taxed on their petrol thereafter?

Mr. Hayhoe: I was unaware of that detail, but I shall study my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Minister talked of "real" terms, but is he aware that on television when the Prime Minister wants to draw attention to high income tax rates she always picks the nurses as an example of people who are especially low paid and heavily taxed? It is plain, therefore, that she regards them as one of the underprivileged sections of the community. What will the Government do about that?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes a fair point when she refers to the amount of a nurse's pay that is taken in direct taxation. The Government hope to be able to reduce the levels of direct taxation.

Civil Defence

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what priority he gives in civil defence planning for the National Health Service to first aid and care in the community; if he has any plans to increase this priority; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services who is responsible for the location and manning of community first aid posts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): The draft consultation document on civil defence planning issued by the Department in 1985 proposed that emergency health care facilities be centred on single tier emergency medical centres which would be staffed wherever possible by general practitioners and retired doctors, together with qualified nurses drawn from various sources, members of the voluntary aid societies and volunteers from the public. Health authorities are responsible for the location and manning of emergency health care facilities, including first-aid posts, for isolated communities. Health emergency planning officers are responsible for co-ordinating civil defence plans in NHS regions, and they have done much work in identifying suitable premises for community care.

Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that much irresponsible nonsense is spoken about civil defence as it affects the National Health Service? We therefore welcome the comments that he has made about the way in which the matter has been co-ordinated, because all the experience of the second world war and subsequent wars has shown that it is essential to have properly planned and integrated health care facilities alongside other civil defence preparations.

Mr. Whitney: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. Health emergency planning officers are hard at work along the lines of which he obviously approves.

Dr. Twinn: Will my hon. Friend say how many regional health authorities have completed identification of all the services?

Mr. Whitney: As I understand it, the health and emergency planning officers have identified areas in all regions. They will continue planning particular health centres to provide emergency medical help.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister agree that if this country is attacked by nuclear or any other kind of weapons, that nurses, doctors or girl guides running around with first-aid kits of bandages, elastoplasts, cold cream and other such things will make no contribution? It is a laughable notion. The only services that will be needed will be burial and funeral services. Will the Government stop conning people that it is possible to survive a nuclear war, and get down to the business of preventing it?

Mr. Whitney: It makes every sort of sense for this Government or any other responsible Government to take the sort of precautions that I have outlined to the House. I ask the House to recognise that peace has been preserved by following the NATO defensive strategy, which, until the present Labour party policy, Governments of both complexions have followed. The dangers of nuclear war would come about if Labour party policies were implemented.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will my hon. Friend meet the cost of training voluntary aid personnel in civil defence duties?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, Sir.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional resources have been provided to assist the elderly and the needy to purchase adequate heat during the recent periods of harsh weather.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the operation of the exceptionally severe weather payment system during the current winter.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): There is an extensive range of heating additions for householders in greatest need, for example those over 65, the chronically sick and disabled, and families with a child under five.
The regulations also provide for single payments to claimants with extra fuel costs arising from exceptionally severe weather. Decisions whether there has been a period of exceptionally severe weather are for adjudication officers in the light of guidance from the chief adjudication officer.
I understand that in recent weeks well over 200 local offices have decided that the weather in their areas falls within the terms of the regulation.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that that is a quite inadequate reply and does not respond to the question? It is clear that Ministers do not seem to be fully aware that this winter has been harsh and that temperatures have been


unduly severe. Are they not aware that the suffering of many elderly and needy people makes the Government's provisions appear deplorably wretched?

Mr. Newton: For six years the Government have consistently shown their awareness of the problems of elderly supplementary pensioners in the winter. That is why we have massively increased the value of the extra regular weekly payments to help with heating costs over and above what the last Labour Government ever did.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the complacency that we have just heard, is the Minister aware that welfare agencies estimate that about a million pensioners are now at risk from hypothermia due to this extremely cold weather? Should not the extra payment be made automatically to all those on supplementary benefit and help given to many pensioners on small incomes but who do not qualify for supplementary benefit? When will the Government show some humanity towards those who are suffering such immense misery because they do not have enough money adequately to heat their homes?

Mr. Newton: I repeat that the best and most effective way consistently to help elderly supplementary pensioners and others is by regular and extra weekly payments for heating. These payments have been greatly extended in their scope since the present Government came into office. They are now worth £140 million a year more in real terms than when the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman left office. That is not a record of complacency.

Mr. McCrindle: I recognise the Government's good record on heating allowances in general, but is not the problem that the severe weather payments have to be paid after the event? There is no certainty that they will be paid even then. Will my hon. Friend turn his attention to ways of encouraging elderly people to heat their homes? At the moment they simply cannot know until sometimes well after the event whether they will fall within the appropriate definition as decided by the local DHSS office.

Mr. Newton: That is precisely my point. The best way to give pensioners and others the assurance that they need in such periods is the certainty of regular weekly help with heating costs, and that is what we have consistently concentrated on for many years.

Mr. Hirst: I appreciate what the Government have done about heating allowances, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that freezing point is as cold in the west of Scotland as it is in the south-east of England? Is he aware that many Scots find it hard to justify a system of extreme weather payments which does not appear to treat all areas equally?

Mr. Newton: As I said in answer to a private notice question on the subject last week, I am aware of the anxiety expressed in Scotland last winter under the then system, and again this winter under the present system. I must repeat my initial statement, which is the truth about the legal position, that it is a matter for local adjudication officers. I understand that the adjudication officer for Scotland as a whole is considering the issue of further advice on the matter, and I shall ensure that his attention is drawn to the renewed anxieties expressed in the House this afternoon.

Mr. Wilson: I listened with sympathy to the Minister's answer, but does he not realise that this February is the

coldest on record since 1947, and that last Friday the temperature in Scotland was 1 deg. less than in Moscow? Will it take another ice age to hit Scotland before the Government give it any help?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his first few words. I have a report which appeared in The Scotsman yesterday about the weather in Scotland, and I have no doubt that the adjudication officer in Scotland has also seen it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to insulate the homes of the elderly than to spend money on additional heating, much of which is lost through the roof or draughty windows? Will he, therefore, discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy a possible joint approach, perhaps to divert some revenue expenditure from the social security budget into capital improvements?

Mr. Newton: As it happens, I discussed that very matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy last Friday in connection with the 220th effective insulation scheme opened by neighbourhood energy action groups in Wandsworth. On many occasions I have made it clear that a considerable amount of supplementary benefit money is being spent on draughtproofing materials, and that before making long-term changes in the single payments arrangements we shall wish to be assured that there is an adequate alternative to ensure the future of those schemes.

Mr. Frank Field: May I give the Minister a couple of examples which illustrate the urgency of the matter? One of my constituents is so cold at night that her doctor has to give her sleeping pills to help her to sleep. Another pensioner, who is bedridden and mortally ill, can afford only to keep his single bar fire on. When will the Government's actions match the urgency of the needs of so many of our pensioners?

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the particular problems of his constituents probably require the attention of authorities other than simply the local social security office. I hope that he has discussed the cases also with the local social services department, and, if necessary, the local health authority.

Mr. Baldry: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that there is widespread anxiety about how the severe weather payment system operates. In the light of experiences this February, will he consider establishing a review in his Department to see whether the system can be improved?

Mr. Newton: We have consistently undertaken to keep the working of this regulation under review. The immediate problem is that the method of working it was changed just before Christmas by the chief adjudication officer, following a legal judgment by the social security commissioners. Indeed, a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed in the House last year when an attempt was made to operate the system on a more consistent basis.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister remember the reply that I received from his Department which showed that in the first six months of 1985 more old people died from hypothermia than in the whole of 1984? Is he aware that in Ayrshire during the past three weeks, every day except one has been colder than the average for February and that the temperatures last Friday night and last Sunday night


were lower than the lowest ever recorded in Ayrshire in February? What other evidence does the adjudication officer need before he gives extreme weather payments and before more people die from hypothermia in 1986?

Mr. Newton: In line with what I have already said to the hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues, I shall ensure that his question, which is properly directed to adjudiciation officers, is drawn to their attention.

Mr. Bill Walker: When considering temperatures in Scotland, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of adjudication officers to the substantial variations in temperatures and in moisture saturation of the air, which is an important factor in regard to deaths among the elderly? Will he bear in mind that regional variations should be taken into account, because some parts of Scotland rarely get any snow?

Mr. Newton: I shall indeed draw that matter to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. Meacher: When will the Government acknowledge that, as now operated, the exceptionally severe weather payments system is a chaotic and arbitrary farce? Is the Minister aware that in virtually every area of the country it is now 4·5 to 5 deg. lower than the average for February, and that that has not been the case for the past 40 years—since the bitter winter of 1947? Will he now, as a matter of urgency, send out a circular to all DHSS offices to ensure that all the very elderly and the severely disabled on supplementary benefit get an immediate extra cash grant of at least £5 a week for heating while the severe cold spell lasts?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman at least acknowledges that the most effective way in which to help people is by regular weekly extra payments. Every supplementary pensioner householder aged over 85 now receives £5·45 a week, on top of the amount included in the weekly scale rate. The same is true for every long-term sick and disabled person on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister not feel pretty embarrassed that the system which he described last year as "weird and wonderful" has this year been replaced by a system that is clearly even worse? Is it not scandalous that people in the highlands and islands of Scotland receive not one penny, although they are suffering extremely bad weather conditions, as is the rest of Scotland? Can the Minister not do something more constructive than pass the matter off to the adjudication officer? Does he not recognise his responsibility?

Mr. Newton: My references to the adjudication officer are simply a state of the legal position. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those concerned, as I have done for others of his colleagues from Scotland.

Social Security Bill

Mr. Pendry: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to consult further with disability organisations on the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Newton: We have not received any requests for meetings in addition to the extensive consultations that have already taken place, but we are always glad to consider the views of such organisations.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that on Friday last the Secretary of State for Social Services received a request from several disablement groups, who were extremely angry? They believe that they have been deceived by the Minister and the Secretary of State. They believe that they have not been consulted properly about the adequacy of existing or future benefit rates, so they have completely lost confidence in the Secretary of State. If Ministers will not meet those groups, listen to what they say and substantially amend the Social Security Bill, they should give way to Ministers who will.

Mr. Newton: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will realise from the puzzled expressions on the faces of my right hon. Friend and myself that that is the first we have heard of this. I assure him that if such a request has been or is made we shall seek to respond to it. However, I must also say that I find some of his expressions rather odd in view of the extent to which the majority of sick and disabled people will clearly have their position improved by the proposals that we have put forward for the income support system on the illustrative rates that we have given.

Mr. Galley: I hope my hon. Friend will agree that he has a record that is second to none in helping the disabled of this country. Will he accept that some people who are now in receipt of additions to benefit on the grounds of ill-health and disability may well not be eligible for the disabled premium under the income support scheme? Will he give serious considerations to a two-tier premium system, for the less severely, and the more severely, disabled?

Mr. Newton: I make two points on that. First, quite large numbers of people that my hon. Friend may have in mind are likely to qualify for a premium under another head, for example, in the category of over 80. Secondly, the most severely disabled on income support already gain considerably from the fact that attendance and mobility allowances are disregarded for supplementary benefit and would be disregarded for income support.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that when he does eventually find the letter he will see that it is signed by a number of the leading organisers of disablement organisations, people of very high standing in the disablement world, and that they are making known to him their grave concern, from their own experience, over the shortcomings of the Social Security Bill? Will he, therefore, give an undertaking to meet them as a matter of urgency when he has seen the letter?

Mr. Newton: Yes.

Drug Counselling

Mr. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss in-service training for social workers on drug counselling.

Mr. Whitney: Yes, if it so wishes. I am in regular contact with the Association of Directors of Social Services.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he meets the association he will be told that because heroin and hard drug-taking in areas of high unemployment such as Merseyside has reached epidemic proportions the social workers and social services cannot cope? Because the


Government have created the conditions that have led to this escalation of hard drug taking by creating massive youth unemployment among teenagers and cutting the staff of the Customs and Excise, is not the onus on the Government to provide the resources to deal with the problem?

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman refers to his officials in Merseyside, he will understand that they have taken advantage of a number of the many initiatives that we have set up to train professionals in coping with drug misuse. If the hon. Gentleman would also refer to the statistics on drug taking, he will see that the correlation between unemployment, full employment and the misuse of drugs has nothing to do with the point he is making.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend give the House a situation report on the appointment of drug co-ordinators in health districts with a view to furthering the training of social workers in drug counselling?

Mr. Whitney: I understand that liaison officers have been appointed in all health authorities. We have also now set in hand the arrangements for a drug advisory service.

NHS Management (Griffiths Report)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implementation to date of the Griffiths report on National Health Service management.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Implementation is proceeding well. All regional arid district general managers have been appointed, as well as over two thirds of those at unit level. I expect the process to be complete by May or June this year.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State take notice of the fact that there is some concern at the time it has taken his Department to approve plans for the devolved administration under Griffiths? Will he ensure that, if possible, that is speeded up in the months ahead? Will he reconsider whether nurses should be represented at management level and whether nursing directors should be appointed in each unit or area? Will the Secretary of State accept that the House would welcome an opportunity to debate the implementation of the Griffiths scheme?

Mr. Fowler: We have debated the implementation of Griffiths on a number of occasions. However, I would certainly welcome a further debate on it. On the issue of the speed of the process, I do not think that anyone has complained that there has been any delay in the introduction of general managers. On the question of nursing, let me make it clear that in most cases there are directors of nursing services. In every case there must be access to professional nursing advice. I want to see more nurses becoming managers, because I believe that they represent a tremendous professional asset to the service.

Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the nursing profession's concern about implementation at unit level, and especially about the fact that in some large hospitals there is no professional nurse of greater seniority than a ward sister?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look at any such example. That is certainly not what has been reported to us. We would not

want such conditions to exist. Forty three nurses have been appointed as unit general managers. As I have said. I should like more nurses to be appointed as general managers in the Health Service.

Mr. Pavitt: Why is the right hon. Gentleman brushing off all the expertise of, and the representations made by, the Royal College of Nursing? That is hardly a revolutionary body. Is he aware that nursing morale at ward level is at its lowest point since 1939? Is he aware that the Rayner and Griffiths reports have made a large difference to the bedside attitude of nurses because there is now a unit manager to tell nurses what to do?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. We are in no way brushing aside the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing. The college has accepted the principles of general management. We share its concern that those principles should be implemented in a way that enhances patient care. Inquiries such as that at Stanley Royd show the defects of the system that general management seeks to replace.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign of the Royal College of Nursing, which calls in aid the coccyx, the humerus and other anatomical bits and pieces, is quite inappropriate? Does my right hon. Friend not prefer the statement of the National Association of Health Authorities that the NHS needs the best managers it can get, whatever the profession from which they come?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. I think that there is not a great deal of difference between the views of the Government and those of the Royal College of Nursing. We all want more effective management in the Health Service, because that is to the benefit of patients.

Mr. Dobson: If implementation of the Griffiths report is proceeding so well, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Royal College of Nursing has spent £250,000 on its campaign against it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most sensible people, if they were in hospital, would prefer the nurse on the ward to turn for advice to a person who had qualified as a nurse rather than someone who had qualified at the London Business School?

Mr. Fowler: That is a rather silly comment. There have been a number of local cases in which the Royal College of Nursing was right to express its concern.. The royal college and the Government believe in the general principle of the Griffiths reforms and in the introduction of general managers. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that in a case such as Stanley Royd, where the present system has been going wrong.

Invalid Care Allowance

Miss Maynard: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many married women have claimed invalid care allowance since the social security appeal tribunal decision on the Drake case.

Sir David Price: asked the Sceretary of State for Social Services if he will take immediate steps to ensure that the invalid care allowance is extended to married women.

Mr. Newton: Up to 7 February the Department has received 10,220 claims from married women. A total of


786 of these claims have been disallowed because qualifying conditions other than marital status were not satisfied. We shall, of course, study the implications of the outcome of Mrs. Drake's case, but we have no plans at present to extend invalid care allowance to married women.

Miss Maynard: In view of the Government's response to the report on community care by the Select Committee on Social Services and their clear reluctance to extend the invalid care allowance to married women, what plans do the Government have to respond to the expected response of the European Court that exclusion of married women of working age would breach a European directive on equal rights in social security schemes?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady assumes a decision from the European Court which we manifestly have not yet had. We shall, of course, consider the decision when we get it. One problem is that if £85 million were available—that would be the cost of the hon. Lady's proposal —it is far from clear whether that would be the best way of giving additional support to those who are caring in the community.

Sir David Price: Would it not be more gracious of the Government to extend the right to that benefit to married women before they are compelled to do so by the European Court, especially as there is overwhelming support in the House and in the country to do just that?

Mr. Newton: Whether it would be more gracious or not, I hope that my hon. Friend, whose views I know and respect, and which have been expressed through his membership of the Social Services Committee, will reflect on my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), which was to the effect that £85 million might be used in a variety of more productive ways to support carers in the community.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister confirm that, if Mrs. Drake's case succeeds, invalid care allowance will also be paid to unmarried women living with partners?

Mr. Newton: That is a matter that we would need to consider in the light of the precise terms of the judgment. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the ordinary course of events the social security system, unlike the tax system, treats co-habitation as being the same as marriage.

Mr. Meacher: If the Government lose the case in the European Court, does the Minister intend, rather then paying care allowance to married women to achieve sex equality, to achieve it by withdrawing the allowance from single women and men? Would that not be absurdly shortsighted and unjust, when the cost of care allowance with back-up services in the community is likely to be only a quarter to half the £350 a week that it now costs for institutional care, which is much less desirable?

Mr. Newton: In various exchanges with several hon. Members this afternoon I have done no more than make the basic point that the best thing that we can do for many carers is to ensure that further services are available to them and that that might be a better use of the resources involved.

Occupational Pension Funds

Mr. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the detailed disclosure requirements for occupational pension funds.

Mr. Fowler: Proposals for disclosure of information were originally published in a consultative document in 1984, which was followed last summer by a further consultative document setting out the detailed proposals for regulations. Draft regulations have been considered by the Occupational Pensions Board, the comments of which we are still considering. The regulations will be laid as soon as possible.

Mr. Freeman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that too few members of occupational pension schemes know and understand what their pension benefits are? Will the Government join a national campaign to encourage occupational pensioners better to understand their schemes and benefits?

Mr. Fowler: I support what my hon. Friend says. The whole purpose of the Social Security Act 1985 is to give more information to scheme members, and we shall ensure that that happens.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the coalfields thousands of retired miners, and miners' widows, receive, as part of a pseudo-occupational pension, a coal allowance? Some others, who have to live in gas-fired accommodation, receive money in lieu. Will he withdraw the circular that went out to local authorities, which has resulted in housing benefit of up to £5 a week being taken away from the disabled of 70 and 80 years of age? Will he do that now?

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. I will not. That supplementary goes remarkably further than the original question.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give further serious study to the problem of achieving not only preservation but real transferability of pension rights for people in middle life and for senior management?

Mr. Fowler: The Government have already taken action in the Social Security Act 1985 to give transfer rights, and we shall do our utmost to give the right of transferability to scheme members. I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend.

NHS Hospitals (Capital Equipment)

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to ensure that maximum use is made of expensive capital equipment installed in National Health Service hospitals.

Mr. Hayhoe: The implementation of the Griffiths report is improving and extending good management, part of whose job is to make maximum cost-effective use of all capital equipment.

Mr. Chope: Is there not a long way to go? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southampton health district alone some £5 million worth of modern X-ray equipment is used only between the hours of nine to five, five days a week?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is some way to go, and it would be useful if my hon. Friend discussed this matter with the chairman of his district health authority.

Civil Defence

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to give guidance on the level of stocks required of first aid and pharmaceutical materials to be held at community first aid posts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitney: Stocks of medical and domestic equipment are held in five depots managed by Crown Suppliers. Consideration is currently being given to the size of the stocks and ways and means of dispersal. Stocks of analgesics are held by some health authorities. These could form part of the provision for community first aid posts.
The question of stocks of drugs, pharmaceuticals, and first aid dressings required for the management of casualties in war is a complex one, and officials in a working group are examining this separately.

Mr. Leigh: Will those manning the first aid posts be adequately trained?

Mr. Whitney: Yes. This is one of the aspects that we are urgently considering.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Clwyd: In view of the unsatisfactory answers given by Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security this afternoon, will the Prime Minister take immediate action to make severe weather payments available throughout Britain and improve the system before some old people freeze to death, or does she not care? How many people have to die before she takes some action?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady is aware, there were a number of questions about this matter this afternoon. The basis of severe weather payments was changed to that which was recommended —in other words, that they should be given at discretion. As the hon. Lady will also be aware, the cold weather payments are but a small proportion of the amount that goes towards helping pensioners and other people with fuel payments, and that has increased dramatically. Spending on help with heating has increased from £90 million in 1978–79 to £400 million this year under this Government.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement issued from her office this morning to the effect that she would welcome the establishment of new arrangements to take into account the view of the Unionists in Northern Ireland will be widely welcomed? Is she further aware that there is now no justification for the strike action that has been called in Northern Ireland for Monday? Will she join those on the Conservative Benches who believe that only constitutional and lawful action in Northern Ireland is compatible with democracy in this place?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We had a useful meeting this morning with the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party, which included an offer to consider, as my hon. Friend said, new arrangements to enable Unionists to make their views on affairs in Northern Ireland known to the Government. They also agreed to consider certain other matters, which I have set out in more detail and put in the Library. I agree that there is no possible reason for a strike on Monday, or at any other time. I hope that the considerations that we raised this morning will be gone into deeply by the Unionists, and we hope to meet again in a comparatively short time when I have seen the leaders of the other parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Steel: What precise steps are the Government taking, before closing the bidding for Land Rover, to ascertain the views of the employees and management, and take them into account?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, by 4 March we need an indication of approximately the amount of those who are thinking seriously of bidding for Land Rover and Leyland Trucks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry has seen some of the unions. It is mainly for the company to see the unions concerned. It is, of course, for the company to get the very best arrangements it can for the future employment of the workers, for future capital for the company, for the amount of the bid and generally for the future prosperity of the company as a whole.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directors of Leyland Bus are endeavouring to lead a management buy-out consortium? Will she welcome this attempt to do what the Conservative party believes in, to encourage those working for the company to participate in a financial way in their future, and will she perhaps consider making the deadline of 4 March for Leyland Bus considerably more flexible than is the case?

The Prime Minister: Of course, all bids will be considered by the company and by the Government. I do not think that we can move the initial deadline. It is not to have the bid fully and completely worked out; it is to indicate where there is a serious bid and the amount, roughly, that it would be expected to be.

Mr. Kinnock: May I put to the Prime Minister the question being asked by thousands of BL workers and management, as well as millions of other people outside the company? Will she now use the power that we know she has to keep British Leyland and its constituent parts British?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly—and I know that he does—perhaps he will influence some of the unions, which have very considerable funds, to put in a bid for the trucks —[Interruption.]

Mr. Kinnock: May I ask the Prime Minister why, after British taxpayers have spent so much in building up the technological base and promoting the advance of the whole corporation, she is so hell-bent on selling off to anyone at any price? Why does she not care enough about British industry to ensure that it stays in its present ownership—in the ownership of this county?

The Prime Minister: Because I believe that one of the functions of British industry is to contribute to the social services and not to compete with them for resources.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her deep admiration for the Ford Motor Company of America, but will she also accept that, while Ford is expanding its spares division in this country because it believes that it is an important part of its profit base, it is unwise for us to be thinking of selling Unipart separately, so removing from Austin Rover and Land Rover an important part of their profit base? Should we not be even-handed and take Ford's advice and keep the spare parts division as the jewel in the crown?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that was quite the advice my hon. Friend was tendering when there was a possibility of exploring things with Ford. I am not sure whether he has had a sudden conversion. In fact, I think we are anxious to get as much privatisation as possible. There are requests to bid for Unipart, and I think that we must consider them properly.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can help me. Is she aware that thousands of pensioners in Fife are freezing to death? How can I explain to them that they must accept a pension increase that will not buy two pints of milk, while at the same time she agreed, without a minute's hesitation, to increases of more than 40 per cent. for top civil servants, judges and admirals? How does she explain this? Is the more accurate explanation of that caring capitalism, or political thuggery?

The Prime Minister: I will compare this Government's record on help with fuel for pensioners with that of any previous Government, including the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman. I repeat what I said a few moments ago: spending on help with heating costs has increased dramatically from £90 million in 1978–79—the Socialist winter of discontent—to £400 million this year, an increase of £140 million in real terms. The increase in social security pensions announced yesterday follows the increase of £2·50 a week for a single pensioner and £4 a week for married pensioners announced last November.

Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to welcome the installation of Mrs. Aquino as President of the Philippines? Will she also take this opportunity to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its efforts during this difficult period in protecting and keeping informed those who have relatives in the Philippines?

The Prime Minister: I shall gladly convey my hon. Friend's message to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It will be nice for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to receive some thanks for its excellent work. The situation in the Philippines is not quite clear, but we understand that Mr. Shultz has recognised Mrs. Aquino as President. I am sure that we shall also wish her well as she embarks upon her task.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: During the course of the visit last week to the kingdom of Nepal by the Prime Minister's right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, did he have an opportunity to raise the case of the 80 Christians who were arrested last year and who now face up to six years in prison for preaching Christianity and converting people to the Christian faith? If not, will the Prime Minister undertake to raise with the Government of Nepal the continued violation of human rights among Christians in Nepal?

The Prime Minister: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's message to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Neale: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Neale: Is my right hon. Friend impressed by the tremendous efforts of British industry and commerce in increasing, as part of Industry Year, the preparedness of school pupils for working life? Does she recognise the great potential for extending these efforts by encouraging commercial organisations to participate in providing more scholarships and in providing finance for schooling?

The Prime Minister: There was a meeting yesterday of industrialists and other people who are involved in the technical and vocational education initiative. This applies to higher education at the moment. The Government have provided £43 million and industry has already contributed £24 million. The industrialists referred to the importance of providing in schools good training in mathematics, physics and chemistry. One of their objectives in Industry Year will be to take very much more interest in schools and to have much more contact with them to ensure that pupils show a greater interest in careers in manufacturing and technology.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that no bid from Lairds for Leyland Bus that is based on stripping out the assets of Leyland Bus's three plants in the United Kingdom, with a view to securing the future of Lairds' own MCW operations in Birmingham —Lairds is a bus manufacturer—will be acceptable to this Government?

The Prime Minister: The Government have made it clear that they will consider all serious bids with a view to giving the companies concerned, including the bus company, the best possible future. That is our objective.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that General Motors has owned Vauxhall since 1925, that it supplied vehicles to our troops during the war and that


nationalistic attacks on this company are damaging the prospects of my constituents and those of other hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear. I am sure we all welcome the employment and prosperity that General Motors provides, and will continue to provide, for our people.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how she can possibly contemplate tax reductions for the very rich in her right hon. Friend's Budget next month when she can afford only 30p extra per week for a single person on supplementary benefit, 55p per week for a married couple on supplementary benefit, and a puny 5p a week for one-parent benefit? Would she care to come around the Croxteth district in my constituency to see how working people have to live, to see how the old and the disabled have to sustain themselves on the meagre sustenance given by this Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself in patience a little longer before he knows about the Budget. I am sure he cannot yet know, because I do not yet know. He must wait. I remind him that we have kept our pledges to the pensioners and have substantially reduced inflation, which is highly beneficial to the savings of pensioners. When the Labour party increased pensions there was enormous inflation and the Labour Government met some of the payments by reducing the value of savings to the pensioners. That was a dishonest thing to do.

Mr. Speller: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Speller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety shown parents and teachers and by everyone in

education about the continuing teachers' dispute ? Has she any news of a possible break in the intransigence of the NUT?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We are anxious for this dispute to be brought to an end. We hope that the ACAS arrangements will ensure a satisfactory conclusion, will stop the dispute and enable children to have full-time education again, and bring about a reasonable settlement for the teachers. I have no news yet about the NUT. I believe that we shall know the result of a ballot tomorrow, but I am not able to give my hon. Friend any more news about the NUT. I hope that if the other unions agree to the ACAS settlement, the NUT will follow suit.

Mr. Woodall: If the Prime Minister will not consider providing an extra heating allowance for elderly people during this exceptionally cold whether, will she consider enlisting the aid of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) to see whether he can conjure up some warmer weather?

The Prime Minister: In addition to the £400 million that is available for heating, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, severe weather payments are available, not on the objective test which hon. Gentlemen did not like last year, but on a discretionary test which we have adopted on the advice of the appropriate advisory body. That is to try to meet the protests that were made last year.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will permit it if it arises directly out of Questions.

Mr. Buchan: During questions to the Prime Minister she was asked about the attitude of her Government to the events in the Philippines. She distinctly answered that she understood that Mr. Shultz agreed with the present situation. While she is not content with flogging off our motor car industry, can the Prime Minister tell us whether she also intends to flog off the Foreign Office?

Mr. Speaker: That would be an extension of Question Time.

Nuclear Waste (Select Committee Report)

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—and this is a legitimate point of order. We are about to have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about the disposal of nuclear waste. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee on the Environment has produced a report on this issue. The Chairman of that Select Committee has already made major inquiries into leaks of that report and some of its proposals. The report is not due to be published until 14 March.
Will it be in order for a member of the Select Committee to ask questions on this statement that relate to the recommendations in the Select Committee report? I want to do that, but I do not want to be accused of breaching privilege and giving away the recommendations. If I am not allowed to ask questions, the Government's decision to announce their recommendations today in advance of the publication of the Select Committee report will be seen as an act designed to gag members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker: We have not heard yet what the Secretary of State for the Environment has to say on the matter. If the hon. Gentleman asks a question that is related directly to what the Secretary of State has said, I cannot see how he will be in error.

Nuclear Waste (Disposal)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.
Following the statement made on 24 January last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive, NIREX, has now completed its search for available sites to be evaluated for a possible near-surface facility for shorter-lived radioactive wastes. In addition to the site at Elstow already announced, NIREX is today announcing that it wishes to investigate sites near Fulbeck in Lincolnshire, Bradwell in Essex and South Killingholme in South Humberside.
I emphasise that at this stage NIREX will carry out exploratory geological investigations at these sites in sufficient detail only to ascertain whether they might be suitable. No proposal is currently being put forward actually to develop any of these sites. Indeed, if none of the sites is confirmed as suitable, none will be developed.
This exploratory geological work will, however, require planning permission. This will be sought from Parliament by way of a special development order, which my Department is today issuing in draft for consultation with the local authorities and water authorities concerned. A copy has been placed in the Library. We shall also consider comments from any others with an interest. We are not required by statute to consult, but on an issue of this importance and level of concern it is right to do so. I hope to lay the actual order before the House in April and there will, of course, be an opportunity for debate.
The types of work which the order will permit will be strictly limited. The order will cover the test drillings and soil sampling that NIREX will need to evaluate the geology and hydro-geology. It will also control operational matters, such as hours of working, and will require that NIREX makes good the sites once it has finished work upon them.
I understand that the investigation of the four sites could take between 12 and 18 months. If any of the sites prove to be suitable, NIREX would at that time be in a position to decide what proposals it wants to make the subject of a planning application.
I shall call in any such application for my own determination. It will be considered at a public inquiry under an independent inspector at which interested parties will have the opportunity to make their views known. NIREX will also have to prepare a detailed assessment of the likely environmental impact of its proposals for the inquiry. I would hope that the inquiry can begin in 1988.
If planning permission is given, the facility will still need a licence from the nuclear installations inspectorate. Furthermore, waste disposal will require authorisation by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The House will wish to be aware that, if an inland site is selected, it may be necessary to establish a small separate coastal site for disposing of the reactor compartments of decommissioned nuclear powered submarines. These items will be best transported by sea and disposed of to a coastal site. To meet this contingency,


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to authorise exploratory work on MOD land, subject to normal planning procedures.
My right hon. Friend in his statement on 24 January 1985 also asked NIREX to start the search for at least three alternative sites for a deep facility for longer-lived wastes. In addition, the nuclear industry was asked, in consultation with the radiochemical inspectorate and the nuclear installations inspectorate, to seek ways of improving the conditioning of intermediate-level wastes for disposal. In seeking sites for a deep facility, NIREX will take full account of research into methods of containing the radioactivity in the wastes. It will in particular be examining the feasibility of deep-mined cavities for these wastes, possibly under the seabed. Work on conditioning continues. I shall of course keep the House informed on further progress.
I am well aware that people are anxious about the safety of the disposal of any sort of radioactive waste arising from the nuclear industry. These anxieties are, I believe, out of all proportion to the nature of the problems posed by disposal, and we and the nuclear industry must redouble our efforts to ensure that the general public are much better informed about the whole question.
We have a duty to ensure the safe disposal of radioactive wastes that already exist and which will arise in the future. The proposals announced by NIREX today are a necessary step to discharging that responsibility.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State accept that, whatever policy decisions may be taken in the future about nuclear power, we must recognise that the problem of existing radioactive waste has to be resolved? Bearing that in mind, will the Secretary of State accept that radioactive waste should be accessible and open to control at all times to allow present management policies to be reversed if necessary at some future date? Does the Department of the Environment's best practical environmental options study show that reversibility of policy can be included in the strategy at little extra cost?
The Government have made six previous statements on this subject and have still not arrived at a final policy position. Why has the Secretary of State made a statement now, when his Department's study of the best practical environmental options has not been published? Would it not have made more sense for the House and the affected areas to have had that information to hand before he made his statement? It is also true that the impending report from the Select Committee, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), could have provided useful information. We are all aware that the Select Committee report will have some strong things to say about this and other aspects of nuclear policy.
While, as the Secretary of State said, the technical problems of dealing with low-level radioactive waste may be easily manageable, the social, economic and political factors are not so easily manageable. The Opposition share the right hon. Gentleman's views that the nuclear industry must produce a better performance in future. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that simple exhortations to that industry to produce a better performance may not be enough?
As the statement does not make it clear, will the Secretary of State tell the House the location of the

exploratory work to be carried out on Ministry of Defence land? The House is entitled to that information, as are the communities in the affected areas.
Will the use of a special development order and the Secretary of State's determination to call in any proposal, effectively bypass a proper role for elected local authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how, with the combination of these two circumstances, the local authorities will participate properly in the decision?
The Opposition welcome the point in the statement which makes it clear that, whatever proposal finally emerges, an environmental impact study will be required. Is the Secretary of State also aware that we welcome the commitment in the statement to further research? Does that commitment not underline the foolishness of the Government's decision, shortly after taking office, to abandon the then existing research programme, especially into the provision of potential deep-mined facilities?
Finally, what are the Secretary of State's policy intentions towards the existing dump for low-level waste at Drigg? Is it now well established that current and past practices at Drigg are no longer acceptable? Will the Secretary of State ensure that those responsible for the tip at Drigg move as quickly as possible to a properly engineered trench and a far safer, environmentally acceptable means of disposing of the present waste?

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome recognition that there is a responsibility which must be discharged by the country in that nuclear wastes arise from a wide variety of activities in hospitals, laboratories, and various factories. There are some 5,000 registered sites where processes involving radioactivity occur. It would be highly irresponsible for any Government not to accept the responsibility to find a satisfactory and safe solution. I echo the points that he made about social and political factors being important.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the best possible environmental option and stressed the importance of the solutions being open and accessible, and possibly even reversible. The best practical environmental options study is a complex and important piece of work. It breaks new ground. It has now been completed. It also involves extensive consultations, especially with the trade unions, which have been completed, as I think he knows. I hope to publish the study within the next two or three weeks. It shows that there is a variety of safe routes.
We had hoped to see the Select Committee report in December or January. I do not criticise the Select Committee in any way, shape or form for the fact that the report is not ready. I think that it has been held up by printing matters. I felt that was right to make a statement today to resolve the rumour and uncertainty which have grown since NIREX wrote to me in early January.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Drigg which is in his constituency. The current arrangement at Drigg poses no risk to the public. Drigg has, however, been operating for a considerable time and there is now room for improvement. Drigg will therefore be upgraded. With effect from 1987, BNFL intends to introduce, first, the compaction of BNFL low-level waste; secondly., the emplacement of waste in trenches rather than tipping as at present; thirdly, the capping of the old trenches to make them impermeable to rainwater; and fourthly the renewal of the site drainage system. The result will be a much improved site.


I shall echo the point made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his remarks. It is no good merely exhorting the nuclear industry to explain the position more clearly; it has a clear responsibility to do so, and so have the Government. The nuclear industry has been somewhat remiss in getting the matter over to the British public and allaying the anxiety over nuclear matters, which I recognise is very real.

Sir Bernard Braine: I see that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is present in his seat. He represents a constituency close to mine and I can imagine his feelings about the fact that such an unsuitable site as Bradwell should have been chose for testing. As by convention he cannot say anything at this stage, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment first to take note that we in Essex —formerly the major dumping ground for toxic waste originating outside our county—will not tolerate such a site in our county? Secondly, will he give the House an assurance that as soon as NIREX has established, as I am sure it will, that that site is unsuitable, he will make an anouncement to the House?

Mr. Baker: There is a well-known precedent, of course, that a Minister may make representations on behalf of his constituents on important planning matters, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will do so. I accept what my right hon. Friend has said and appreciate that anxiety is felt in the localities that have been mentioned, along with an anticipated but unnecessary anxiety in some of the locations which have not been mentioned. I stress that at the moment I am proposing exploratory drillings, which will take 12 to 18 months. If, during the course of those exploratory drillings, any of the sites seem patently unsuitable, they will be dropped at that stage.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the previous round of drilling programmes for high-level waste disposal? Will he recollect that the Government had to abandon that campaign as a result of the strong public objection by environmental groups in the areas that had been chosen? Does he anticipate the same result for this programme? Will the Secretary of State tell the House why the Government do not declare clearly for a containment rather than a disposal option?

Mr. Baker: Since the Flowers report of 1976 it has been the policy of successive Governments that nuclear waste should not be contained or stored at the site at which it arises but that it should be disposed of at an alternative site. That policy has been confirmed many times and it is the policy that I think is right. The very toxic wastes are contained either on site or at Sellafield. The hon. Gentleman asked about deep-mined facilities, but I would stress to him that we are dealing with low-level or intermediate-level waste where the radio-activity is quite short-lived. I hope that the fact that we are not dealing with very toxic substances in this operation will satisfy and in some way alleviate anxiety.

Sir Trevor Skeet: How many lives have been lost in the nuclear industry in the past 30 years? Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance

that the prime consideration of the selection of sites will be public safety? Will my right hon. Friend state the proximity of substantial population to anyone of the sites which have been suggested?

Mr. Baker: That is clearly a matter of significance. I thank my hon. Friend for his past support and for recognising the fact that the Government have to make difficult, and in certain areas unpopular, decisions in discharging their responsibility. I assure my hon. Friend that my role as Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned with the environmental impact, and of course with safety. Safety is crucial in these matters. The standards which apply to new disposal facilities are set out in my Department's assessment principles, pubished last year. The overall target is that no individual should be subjected to maximum exposure of more than one tenth of the level set by the international commission on radiological protection.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that if there was a geological optimum and suitable site in the West Lothian constituency I would go up and down my constituency and argue for its acceptance —such is my confidence in the British nuclear industry on these issues? Why, why, why talk in terms of a coastal site for decommissioned nuclear unit submarines? Would it not be much simpler also to settle on a coastal site for nuclear waste rather than to raise up a hornet's nest of inland sites? The choice of an inland site by its very definition in the statement, means that there must be two bites at the proverbial cherry. It would be simpler to eliminate all inland sites and choose a coastal site so that one can overcome the problem not only of Conqueror but other unit submarines.

Mr. Baker: The defence sites require a much smaller area for disposal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will, in due course, determine which will be suitable. It will all be done through normal planning procedures. The hon. Member has a reputation for courageous independence and I fully recognise that if a site was selected in his constituency he would campaign for it. The hon. Member recognises that this is a duty that has to be discharged and that it can be discharged safely. I thank him for saying that.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unanimous and implacable opposition of the people of Humberside to the idea of nuclear waste being dumped anywhere in my constituency? Is he further aware that we shall fight a guerrilla war against the unelected and unaccountable body NIREX, and his Department, to ensure our victory? What must we show during the forthcoming period of consultation on the SDO to persuade him to amend it? When does he envisage naming one site that will be presented to a public inquiry? Why will the Government not seek alternative methods of disposal? Will my right hon. Friend say whether the NIREX statement on my local radio, that little notice will be taken of public opinion, is his view? Finally, I stand by my remarks in column 611 of Hansard of 21 February.

Mr. Baker: I am aware of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on these matters, and I can assure him that I have no proposals for a nuclear site in the Chiltern Hundreds. My hon. Friend asked me to consider alternative methods


of disposal. In my statement I said that we, together with NIREX, would consider the possibility of deep-mined cavities, especially those extending under the seabed. Sweden has devised that solution under the Baltic. I intend to visit that facility, and the other facilities in Europe, especially that of low-level clay disposal in France. Those options should not be excluded for different levels of waste.
My hon. Friend asked whether the SDO could be altered. Today I published it in draft form so that there could be widespread consultations with local authorities about its details. Once it is laid, it cannot be altered for six weeks. My hon. Friend asked when one site would be named to go to a public inquiry. Once NIREX has completed its geological investigations in eight to 12 months' time, it can decide what proposals it wants to make the subject of a planning application. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), if, during investigations, any of the sites appears patently unsuitable, NIREX will abandon it, to avoid prolonging uncertainty.
My hon. Friend referred to a radio interview this morning which I did not hear. However, this morning I heard the managing director of NIREX on the radio and he made it clear that, as regards taking public opinion into account, he would have mail shots to every house in each of the localities, and there would be public presentations and mobile exhibitions. It is extremely important that that process should be open and frank.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not the undeniable truth that Parliament treats the issues of nuclear waste as local authorities treat the issue of the Romanies and travelling people? Is it not clear that the British public will not live next to nuclear waste? Why does the Secretary of State not accept my recommendation of three years ago, two years ago and nine months ago that the Government should choose an off-mainland, coastal, island site in the Atlantic or Pacific, where —[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we shall not find a site on our mainland. We must consider the issue realistically. We must find a site under international supervision. All the nuclear waste-producing nations should service it, fund it, and provide a bank there for all nuclear waste. Then the problem would no longer exist. That is the solution. In the end, the Secretary of State will have to choose that method, just as he has had to adopt a solution of that nature for the decommissioning of naval vessels.

Mr. Baker: The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, who is also courageously independent in these matters, should be possible for high-level long-life wastes. Indeed, the feasibility studies on deep sea cavities under the seabed —that is, not dumping on the sea floor—which are in hand with NIREX and with which the Government will be associated, may be an answer for intermediate and high-level wastes.
The wastes that we are talking about are solid—they are not gaseous or liquid. They are such things as come from factory processes—they can be rubber gloves from hospitals, laboratory equipment and pipes or equipment used in any of the 5,000 sites registered for radioactive processes. We cannot just leave this stuff lying around. Much of it is low level, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon.

Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) know. It can be dealt with adequately in shallow disposal in clay, as the French have done at Cherbourg.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that NIREX's proposals, at least in so far as they relate to inland sites, are based on the concept of absolute containment of the waste? Will he accept that I and my constituents regard it as deeply unwise even to consider putting such waste in such a crowded county as Bedfordshire, or in any other county'' Does he agree that there is no site in Europe—neither the site at Centre de la Manche nor the proposed improvements at Drigg—which relies wholly on absolute containment? Both rely, at least in part, on fail-safe drainage to the sea. Will he continue to examine alternative proposals, not least dividing the treatment of low-level waste from intermediate-level waste and the better use of existing facilities, not least at Drigg, before he comes to any conclusions?

Mr. Baker: In 1984, following discussions between the nuclear industry, other waste producers and the Government, the radioactive waste management advisory committee, which advises me on these matters, agreed a classification scheme which was set out in its fifth annual report, copies of which are in the Library. The dividing line between low and intermediate-level wastes is now clearly defined.
As for containment, NIREX is basing its proposals on what is called the multi-barrier concept of disposal. It is designed to minimise the return of radioactivity to man by using several different types of barrier, which include the geology of the site, the construction of the facility and the conditioning and packaging of the waste. The waste is put in steel drums in sand and concrete. The drums are then put in concrete-lined trenches, embedded in clay and covered with sand and concrete and, finally, topsoil. The French are pursuing that method at Cherbourg. As for alternative facilities, I have made it clear today that we shall consider deep-mined facilities, especially for some of the higher and intermediate-level wastes.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that, despite the assistance that he has had from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), no sites in Scotland have been or will be considered for the dumping of nuclear waste?

Mr. Baker: NIREX was looking for possible sites for shallow disposal of low-level waste. That is the exercise on which it has been engaged during the past year. It therefore limited its researches to the clay belt of the country. The principal clay belt runs from south Humberside in an arc down to Dorset. That is why the selected sites lie within that area.

Mr. Edward Leigh: South Killingholme is only 3½ miles from my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to enjoy the abundant fruits of nuclear energy—cheap and plentiful power—low-level waste must go somewhere? Does he agree that it is sheer hypocrisy and humbug to say that it should go anywhere but on one's own doorstep? Does he agree that not one death has been attributed to the nuclear energy industry? Does he agree that the level of radiation from such sites is less than that which occurs naturally in many geological formations?
Will he reject the emotional claptrap and humbug and, after informed debate, put the site in the best geological position—

Mr. Michael Brown: Gainsborough?

Mr. Baker: I welcome my hon. Friend's courage. What he said at the beginning is absolutely right. We generate about 18 per cent. of our electrical power from nuclear energy. France already generates more than 50 per cent. of its electrical power from nuclear energy, and by the end of the century, that will have increased to 75 per cent. That will give France an enormous competitive edge in energy-intensive processing industries such as the chemical industry, heavy industry, food processing industries and paper-making. The cost of energy is vital to such industries. It would be extremely bad news for British industry if we surrendered an enormous advantage in energy costs to our continental competitors.
I welcome what my hon. Friend says. I must emphasise that the process will be subject to a full planning inquiry. As a matter of courtesy, I spoke to the Members of Parliament involved with the sites this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is unable to be in the House, but he raised with me his anxiety for a full planning inquiry—Fulbeck lies in his constituency.

Several Hon. Members: rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that there will be a debate on this matter. I ask hon. Members to ask one question, or two at the most, or we shall get long answers.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason why there is not confidence in what is proposed here, when the same is not true for other countries, is the constitution of NIREX? When he goes on his perambulations to other countries, he will find that the equivalent bodies there have on their boards representatives of the trade unions and environmentalists. Environmentalists accept that, even if nuclear power were stopped tomorrow, the waste would have to be disposed of. As for the deep geological disposal of high-level waste, is he aware that every other country identifies a site for experimental purposes to prove that it can be done? An undertaking is given that nuclear waste will not be disposed of at that site, so there is public acceptance. That is not being done here. No site will be accepted unless similar action is taken here.

Mr. Baker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is an interesting point. What he describes does not happen in every country—France for example.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a very good point, though.

Mr. Baker: Well, it does not happen in France, and we cannot dismiss the French Government as indifferent to the safety of the French people in nuclear matters. Each country is beginning to fashion its own policies. Germany, for example, is going for very deep-mined cavities, principally using former salt mines. I shall see other possible means of disposal.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are delighted that he has said that safety will be the crucial factor? In view of what he said about anxiety being aroused out of all proportion to

the danger, does he think it regrettable that items in The Sunday Times for two consecutive weeks have given information which Dr. Jakeman now says is not entirely correct? Dr. Jakeman has described the articles as "not particularly helpful". They have, regrettably, aroused unnecessary public fears.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right about there being many exaggerated fears, but I can understand them. There is a suspicion of all things nuclear. The country cannot say that it wants the benefits of cheap nuclear power but not be prepared to accept responsibility for dealing with wastes. I confirm what she said about safety being the prime concern. It is my prime concern. It is also clearly set out in NIREX's third report, in which methods of disposal are discussed. I shall ask NIREX to send copies to all hon. Members.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his attempt to allay the anxieties of the nation, and especially of the people in the four counties chosen, will be reduced by his being perceived to be proceeding with unseemly haste to follow one option—near-land-level disposal of nuclear waste —when other options are available and there is time in which to make a choice? Why does the Secretary of State not wait and use the sites which already have nuclear installations and the cool-dry storage option until other options can be assessed properly, after all the evidence has been adduced?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he had not manipulated the planning procedures by introducing a special development order, there would not be a chance of planning permission being granted in any of the four counties that he has announced?

Mr. Baker: I am not quite sure what the policy of the Liberal party is on this matter. The policy of the Social Democratic party is clear and robust. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dr. David says no."] That is quite clear. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was saying that this is an occasion when we should examine storage on site. That policy has been rejected by successive Governments since 1976, when it was agreed that there should be disposal away from the sites. The hon. Gentleman's party has not been in government since 1976 but he will remember that for two years it sustained the Labour Government in office and it was supposed to have a veto on all major policies. Why did it continue to support this dreadful and unacceptable policy for two years?

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people would accept the theory that the nation cannot avoid facing up to the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste but that, when it comes to the practice, it is almost impossible to get any individual area to accept the siting of waste? Will he tell us what criteria led him to the selection of the four sites for further exploratory work?

Mr. Baker: This is not my selection; it is a selection made by NIREX, which is the combined company representing the nuclear industry in this country. It was looking at possible sites for shallow disposal of low-level and intermediate short-lived wastes. That inevitably led them to examine sites in the clay belt.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Where is the exploratory work on the Ministry of Defence land to


take place? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the nuclear establishments in west Berkshire are not being considered?

Mr. Baker: I think that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I will draw my hon. Friend's comment to his attention.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great appreciation of his knowledge and frankness on this subject? His knowledge is very much in contrast with that of his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), which is really ignorant posturing on the matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that part of the problem of public acceptance has been the cavalier attitude of scientists in the past who have not been open, frank and honest about the problem? Will he take steps to ensure that that does not continue?

Mr. Baker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's last point. I think that there is a great gap between the scientists' perception of the problem and the general public's perception of the problem. I think that the scientists have felt that this is a minor problem which can be dealt with because they are familiar with the chemistry and the physics of it and in the past I think that they have given scant regard to the social and political problems of dealing with it.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that, until a final decision is made, there will be anxiety on all four inland sites under consideration? As my constituency is adjacent to Bradwell, the constituents of Rochford will take a great interest in that decision. In addition, there is a large area of Ministry of Defence land in Rochford—Foulness—which may be a candidate for the exploratory work which the Secretary of State has referred to. Therefore, would he agree to name the sites for exploratory work as quickly as possible, so that anxiety can he reduced?

Mr. Baker: I have put maps in the Library showing the exact delineation of the sites where there will be test drilling. The drilling and the hydrological surveys will take place only in those confined areas.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State has consistently made references to the French experience. The right hon. Gentleman will not recall, because he was not the Secretary of State at that time—but I am sure that the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government will tell him—the impact of the announcement on Billingham and its effect on property values and on prospective industrial development. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he has in mind any form of subterfuge à la Francais—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We conduct our business in English here.

Mr. Cook: —to indemnify the electorate in these areas should they be chosen for such disposal and it goes ahead? Is that to be part of his technique eventually?

Mr. Baker: The French have a way of dealing with these problems which involves certain areas competing to have a nuclear installation or a dump. I have set in hand various examinations as to advantages that could accrue to local areas. Our rating system is such that, when an

installation of this nature, which it is difficult for the local community to accept, is running, it adds to the rateable value, but the money is creamed back again. I am looking at ways in which that can be done. [Interruption.] NIREX has already said that it is prepared to consider payments for properties which may be affected by planning rights.

Mr. Richard Alexander: May I first express regret to my right hon. Friend that I was advised by the press six or seven hours ago that Fulbeck was to be considered? That is not very satisfactory, but I do not blame my right hon. Friend. May I advise him that it will be his task and mine to explain to the areas concerned that the methods proposed are safe? In that connection may I strongly suggest that, for the residents of Fulbeck, which is some four or five miles from my constituency boundary, a public relations exercise should be mounted promptly saying whether it will be low-level or intermediate-level waste which will be disposed of there, thereby allaying many of the fears which are naturally aroused?

Mr. Baker: I am sorry that information about the sites was leaked. It did not come from my Department. because several sites were mentioned which were not in the list that I received from NIREX in January. I take to heart the point that my hon. Friend has made that there must be an intensive effort at local level on the part of NIREX, the Government and my hon. Friend to explain the nature of the problem and how it can be resolved, stressing how important it is to deal with the safety aspects. I also understand his point about intermediate and low -level waste.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so arrogantly dismissive of the views of ordinary people and why does he talk to them like children, saying that he will educate them and so on, when everybody knows that, as soon as an accident occurs in the nuclear industry, we get immediate lies to pacify us? Those lies are often remedied by the next speech. We know from Sellafield—a name which came about, God knows why, after Windscale, and there might be a third name yet—that nuclear waste is going into the Irish sea and that it is being dumped, to the fear of people on the coast of Ireland and Britain. We know that such waste is going around the country on the railways and we regularly learn of carriages carrying such waste which have come off the rails, as happened in Leeds on one occasion.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the public's fears are not legitimate, when they know that if anything goes wrong the first thing the Secretary of State will do is distort the reality and try to convince them that everything is right, using the French experience as an example? Will he tell us the truth and tell British Nuclear Fuels plc and NIREX that it is time that they talked to us like adults and not as children, to try to lull us into a sense of false security?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I have been saying. He only wants to listen to things which support his own prejudices. I have made it clear that I am concerned personally and on behalf of the Government about the safety aspects of the matter. When dealing with these matters it does no good to use extravagant and exaggerated language. The nuclear industry is one of the most regulated industries in Britain.


Three main inspectorates deal with nuclear matters. The regulations are contained in 15 different Acts of Parliament. There are 145 nuclear inspectors.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend understand that, as one of those who has within his constituency a village that was rumoured to be chosen as a site, I am conscious that, however hard one tries to explain that low-level nuclear waste might be safe, there is still considerable fear about it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a considerable planning blight, no matter how hard NIREX tries? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear as a matter of natural justice that the House will ensure that those who suffer from the effects of planning blight will receive compensation?

Mr. Baker: Loss through planning blight can be exaggerated. Various studies in the Bedfordshire area do not entirely support that claim. As I have made clear, NIREX has already said that, if property values are affected, it will be prepared to consider payments. I reiterate that it is important to allay anxieties. Some of these matters result from hospital work and from laboratory work. Furniture, gloves and paper towels are among the articles which may be affected by radioactivity. They may register a low level of radioactivity but, nevertheless, they must be dealt with. An understanding of the type of wastes about which we are talking might result in more collective acceptability of the fact that we must deal with this problem.

Mr. Georges Foulkes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as he took the responsibility in his statement for announcing that certain Ministry of Defence coastal sites will be examined with a view to disposing of wastes from decommissioned vessels, he has the responsibility for telling the House where the sites are? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to extend this courtesy to the House, will he at least tell us how those sites will be announced, so that hon. Members and the public know exactly where the sites are?

Mr. Baker: My responsibility, and the responsibility of my predecessors since 1976, has been principally for the disposal of civil nuclear waste. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall undertake to bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence as, clearly, he has responsibility for these matters. I shall stress to my right hon. Friend the importance of deciding as soon as possible.

Mr. John Townend: I accept that safety is a first priority and that the Government must make a difficult decision. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opposition to the Killingholme site is not restricted to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)? There is a great apprehension in my constituency, which is only three miles away as the crow flies. There is a feeling on Humberside that the north suffers enough disadvantages. Perhaps East Anglia, which is a favoured area, might be a more suitable site.

Mr. Baker: I note that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is not in his place to hear that comment. Humberside contains a large number of industries which are dependent upon a high use of energy. Those very industries would benefit from low-cost energy.

I stress again that we are talking not about liquid or gas wastes but about solid wastes. These wastes will be contained in sand and concrete in steel drums which are then embedded in concrete-lined trenches and then surrounded by clay. I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade his constituents that those are adequate safeguards.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has as much chance of inflicting the 300-year blight of this noxious nuclear nuisance on Humberside as he has of putting it in the back garden of Dunroamin in Dulwich. Is this list exactly the same as the one that was presented to the right hon. Gentleman on 8 January, or have changes been made? Is it just a happy coincidence that so many of the best possible sites for nuclear dumps happen to be owned by the Government or the Central Electricity Generating Board, or is it just that NIREX thinks that that will be all that it will be able to get away with after the mauling it received at Billingham? What is the right hon. Gentleman's real responsibility —is it to act as a messenger boy, using his almost dictatorial powers at the behest of NIREX, or is it to look now to development, planning, environmental and transport needs and to the interests and needs of the population in the areas concerned before it is too late?

Mr. Baker: Those last points are the very ones that will be explored in detail by the planning inquiry. As for the public as opposed to private sites, a private site in Billingham, which was owned by ICI—was considered, but the private owner withdrew. NIREX principally examined public sector sites. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the list I have announced is the same list that NIREX recommended in its January letter. It is exactly the same.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: One need only mention the word "nuclear" to raise great fears. Although the nuclear industry is vital in providing energy treatment in hospitals, in research into health care, in industrial processes, and so on, does my right hon. Friend expect the people of north Humberside to accept the announcement in the light of that fear? Is my right hon. Friend aware that 50,000 signatures of people who oppose this proposal have already been collected? Does he agree that he will be flying in the face of reality? Before NIREX proceeds along this course, will we explore alternative solutions, especially the Swedish scheme for disposal under the sea? Why can the waste not be kept at Drigg until all the alternatives have been explored? What will my right hon. Friend do to inform the people of Humberside what this really means?

Mr. Baker: A feasibility study of the deep-mine facility is under way. It is principally concerned with higher-level waste and intermediate-level waste, which have long lives. The third report by NIREX and what is happening in other countries show that that solution is not considered to be necessary for low-level and short-lived intermediate-level wastes. My hon. Friend will be able to emphasise to his constituents that at this stage exploratory geological surveys will be taking place for 12 to 18 months. A decision has not been made on a particular site. I hope that a great deal of effort will be made locally to explain the exact nature of the problem with which we are trying to deal.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the statement not demonstrate that, whereas successive Governments were prepared to start on the development of nuclear power, decades later other Governments are finding it increasingly difficult to sell, even to some of their own Members of Parliament, the idea of getting rid of the waste? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman cut the losses in respect of nuclear power? Why does he not take on board the Labour party's resolution to phase out nuclear power stations? This would at least mean that future generations would not have to deal with the mess the right hon. Gentleman has got into. Will the right hon. Gentleman not treat Members of Parliament and the people outside with contempt by suggesting that this waste is all right and secure? If the waste is all right, why is he not putting it in Mole Valley? Why is he not recommending the constituency of Finchley? Why is the waste not being put in Whitehall? If the waste were so good and wonderful, the Americans would have submitted a hid for it long ago.

Mr. Baker: I thought that we were doing quite well with the Chief Whip's constituency. The hon. Gentleman is a well-known opponent of the whole nuclear power industry and of the generation of cheap electricity from nuclear power. If that policy were pursued, British industry would be at a grave competitive disadvantage towards the end of this century. As for safety, may refer the hon. Gentleman to safety in the coal mining industry.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, in response to questions about Elstow, NIREX has shown that it considers it not as a national site, but as a regional site? Is the Minister reluctant to use coastal sites because there are none available on Government property? Does he consider the facility as a national facility or must there be one in each region, especially in relation to Hinckley Point in Somerset, because that is a site shown on a map of original sites handed over to some people by NIREX?

Mr. Baker: The sites that will be selected eventually will be national.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his original statement the Secretary of State for the Environment said that to meet the contingency, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intended to authorise exploratory work on Ministry of Defence land subject to normal planning procedures. That was said in relation to decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. On the question of parliamentary manners, should not a Defence Minister have been present on the Front Bench to help the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was asked questions by my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Would it not be a good idea if we had a statement from a Defence Minister tomorrow, if only to quell the malicious rumour that they are sniffing out land in the Falklands for the Ministry of Defence site?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for who sits on the Front Bench at any one time.

Private Members' Bills

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise three related matters, which arise from events that have occurred since yesterday afternoon.
This morning at 10 o'clock, an application was available for leave to introduce a Bill under the ten minutes rule, which, if introduced, would take place on Budget day. When I went to the place where queueing takes place outside the Public Bill Office yesterday afternooon, a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Treasury Minister was queueing in that office — the hon. Member for Fyfe, North-East (Mr. Henderson). Slightly later in the day, another Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretary was in the room and subsequently two more Treasury Private Parliamentary Secretaries. At ten o'clock this morning one of those Parliamentary Private Secretaries secured the right to introduce a ten-minute Bill on behalf of the lion. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor.
First, as I understand that the right to seek leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill is a Back-Bench right in Back-Bench time, is it in order that that right should be used by Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries to secure the right for themselves? Secondly, is it acceptable that they should do so in a way that has been arranged as a matter of departmental policy between the relevant Ministers? If that happens and a Bill is secured by that device, is it acceptable to the House or is it an abuse if the hon. Member who secures the right seeks leave to withdraw the Bill or withdraws it in the final days before it would be introduced, thus preventing anyone else from introducing a Bill?
Thirdly, if an hon. Member appears at a certain time to queue to introduce a Bill and is replaced, effectively handing over to another hon. Member, should the latest in the relay team secure the right for the Bill to be introduced? Alternatively, if there is an hon. Member who happens to arrive second, but is willing to queue continuously throughout the following hours during the day or night, should not that person, who has queued all the time, have the prior right to seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his point of order, because it has enabled me to make inquiries. I find that nothing untoward has occurred. Parliamentary Private Secretaries are Back Benchers and the parliamentary tactics to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention have been going on for many years, since before I came here.

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the provision of adequate heating payments to pensioners and other claimants in need in view of the exceptionally severe weather now being experienced throughout the country.
The matter is important, because not only is this one of the
coldest Februarys on record—it is estimated that this may be the coldest February for more than 300 years—but the system of exceptionally severe weather payments devised by the Government to meet those circumstances is in complete disarray and is unworkable. Only one quarter of DHSS offices have officially declared the weather "severe", even though the exceptional cold has been registered throughout almost all the country with temperatures of minus 10 to minus 17 deg C being widely experienced. Designation of exceptionally severe weather conditions has been left to arbitrary local discretion. Even in the coldest areas, no advertising of the payments has been undertaken, so nobody knows that they are available and nobody who is entitled receives them.
The matter is specific, because people are dying of hypothermia. Every year, the number of deaths is increasing. In 1978 it was 42, and according to Government figures it was 329 in 1984 and no fewer than 415 in the first half of 1985 —the latest figures. This February will undoubtedly produce the worst mortalities for 50 years or more. Even so, the figures understate the numbers at risk. The latest thorough survey discovered that one in every 200 elderly people—more than 50,000 pensioners—had a deep body temperature below 95 deg F, which is the threshold for hypothermia. Those people are now at risk.
The matter is urgent, because whilst we are now three weeks into a severe cold spell, the weather today with a severe easterly wind is markedly colder still. According to the Metereological Office, which I have checked, almost all areas are today almost 5 deg C colder than during a normal February, the coldest areas of all being in East Anglia, the Midlands, South-West England and South Wales.
The Government's exceptionally severe weather payments system has broken down and 50,000 elderly people and young babies in cold households are at risk of dying. The death rate from hypothermia is already remorselessly rising. I submit that the matter should be debated by the House as a matter of urgency to ensure immediate extra aid for heating where it is most needed —in the coldest households.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the provision of adequate heating payments to pensioners and other claimants in need in view of the exceptionally severe weather now being experienced throughout the country".

I have listened with care to the hon. Member's submission and I listened to questions on the statement yesterday and at Question Time today, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, my sole duty when considering an application under Standing Order No.10 is to decide whether the matter should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member is not going to question my decision.

Mr. Winnick: I do not question your decision, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that you do not like continual applications under Standing Order No.10 on successive days. Regardless of the indifference of Conservative Members to the suffering of the elderly, will you, Mr. Speaker, accept that so long as the present cold weather continues, there are bound to be further applications under Standing Order No.10, because this is an issue that deeply concerns us, although obviously it does not concern Conservative Members? There may well be another application tomorrow or Thursday, and I hope that you will not say that this is an abuse of House of Commons time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is putting a hypothetical question. I shall have to wait to see what happens. I also take into account other opportunities, such as Opposition time, to raise such matters.

BILL PRESENTED

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (TELEVISION BROADCASTING)

Mrs. Ann Clwyd, supported by Mr. Harry Ewing, Ms. Harriet Harman, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Laurie Pavitt, presented a Bill to prohibit the mention or display in television broadcasts of the brand names, colour, logos or other identifying characteristics of tobacco products; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and order to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 April. [Bill 92.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 9576/82 and 7719/84, a draft Directive and Amendment on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Durant.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 60) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Renewable Energy Sources (Promotion)

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent commission responsible directly to Parliament for the research, development and demonstration of clean renewable alternative sources of energy.
This is not an attempt to further the interests of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) once called
eco-freaks and the friends of the foxgloves".
Rather, it is a genuine attempt to promote
a much more flexible approach to the energy future in which the essential ingredients are diversity of energy supply, economy of energy supply and efficiency of energy use.
Those are not my words but the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy when he addressed the House on 25 October last year, the only time that a full-length debate has been dedicated to the issue. The Under-Secretary's first requirement forms the basis of the first paragraph of my proposed preamble to the Bill, which refers to the need for diversity and flexibility of operable energy supplies, leading into a fully integrated system of distribution being clearly recognised and universally accepted.
My second paragraph refers to the known reserves of fossil fuels and hydrocarbons being finite, with a predictable point of exhaustion in time. It is generally thought that North sea gas will be effectively worked out by the mid-1990s, and that North sea oil will be exhausted not long after that. Known reserves of coal will last much longer, but the prospect of its wasteful application is covered by the third paragraph of the preamble, which says that such fossil fuels can be put to much better use as foodstock, for fertilisers, plastics, chemicals, aviation fuel and the like rather than for wasteful combustion as a mere source of heat.
That view is supported by the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) who said in the debate:
hydrocarbon fuels … are far too precious to burn. They have premium uses …they must be conserved.
That view was further confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) who reminded the House of Mick McGahey's assertion:
the last thing that we should want to do with coal is burn it.
The fourth paragraph of my preamble is about the operation of establishments using nuclear sources and servicing the nuclear power industry, which is currently giving rise to ever-increasing anxiety and concern over possible adverse effects on adjacent communities. I do not have to remind the House about Sellafield, but I add the names of Trawfynydd, Burghfield, Harwell, Rosyth, Faslane, and Aldermaston and media speculation linked with these establishments.
The fifth paragraph refers to unforeseen incidents at nuclear establishments, which have also been the cause of jusifiable speculation about the possible health and safety consequences for workers at such plants and their families. Recent reports bear witness to the validity of this paragraph.
The sixth paragraph refers to the disposal of irradiated waste created by the operation of plants handling nuclear elements, which has created grievous problems for the industry in terms of public response and levels of

acceptability as some communities perceive them. The response to today's statement on the disposal. of radioactive waste is a simple testimony to this concern.
Paragraph 7 refers to the fact that nations other than the United Kingdom are already making gainful applications of British research and technological developments in inquiry into renewable sources to add to the total energy supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) quoted David Ross, an eminent commentator on these matters, who reported that Norwegian authorities, applying the multiresonant oscillating water column technique developed in this country, claimed that electricity had been generated at a cost per kw hour of 3·4p on an appliance made for demonstration purposes only and not scaled for the most cost-effective operation. This is less than 20 per cent. of the original target figure of 20p per kw hour set by the Department of Energy when the wave research programme first began.
Paragraph 8 refers to the potential benefits to the economy issuing from the successful development of renewable sources, which would be enormous in terms of job creation and training needed to provide adequately for such new employment. In today's employment climate, one need hardly say more.
Paragraph 9 refers to the potential economic, ecological, social and political benefits made avilable for Third-world development, which would be immediate and accelerating. No caring politicain can afford to ignore that potential gain.
Paragraph 10 refers to previous efforts to further progress in the research and development of renewables being deprived of impetus and starved of incentive by the attitudes of parties with interests vested in already established and traditional fuel sources. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew attention to the report of the Select Committee on Energy in the 1983–84 Session and in the debate last year. The report, in referring to the energy technology support unit, the agency responsible for fostering research and development of "renewables", said that the
spread of experience would have to be widened to include more specialists with non-nuclear backgrounds.
My hon. Friend had been told
that most if not all of the people involved in the ETSU have had careers in the atomic industry.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) posed an interesting question in that debate. He asked:
What is the role of the Central Electricity Generating Board? I suspect that it, not the Government, gives the thumbs down to alternative energy schemes.
Is there a need for an independent commission? The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said in the debate that previously the allocation of funds for energy research and development: had been weighted heavily in favour of conventional fuels. He continued:
Is it not more logical to supply rather more funding for these clean and renewable alternatives instead of continuing only with the vast amount of funding:hat is directed … to fission and fusion technologies? Unfortunately, we leave so very little finance available for the very alternatives that may in future become necessary."—[Official Report, 25 October 1985; Vol. 84, cols. 577-625.]
This month, David Ross told me that the Sizewell inquiry revealed that in 1978 the CEGB circulated an internal memorandum that said:
The use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation is likely to be less economic than nuclear power. Nevertheless, it is important to explore these alternatives, in order both to satisfy ourselves that nuclear expansion is fully


justified, and to demonstrate this to others, since groups opposing nuclear expansion have made substantial progress in the past few years.

Dr. Michael Clark: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. There are no interventions in a ten-minute Bill speech.

Mr. Cook: The nuclear industry and the CEGB stand condemned by their comments. They find the answer in the back of the book and invent the work to suit. Only this week, the Secretary of State for Energy is quoted in The Observer as saying:
One of the problems of the nuclear industry is that it is very inbred. We need a generation change from the people who built it up in the 1950s.
On previous occasions when I have made the accusation of the incestuousness of the industry, the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government has taken me to task for it. It is interesting to see that the Secretary of State for Energy seems to be agreeing with me, because I fail to distinguish between inbreeding and incest.
The Under-Secretary of State told the House:
As a nation we waste £7 billion per year on energy. We must cut out that appalling waste.
He went on to say that it is
not a case of dusting down the older technologies and constructing wooden windmills … We are talking here of `state of the art' technology … working on the frontiers of science. It consequently takes time and much effort to evaluate the individual technologies and to identify those which can make a … contribution to United Kingdom energy supply.
He continued:
The Government's attitude towards alternative sources of energy is responsible and imaginative."—[Official Report, 25 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 577-625.]
That may be so; I will not take issue, but I will say that
the attitude also needs to be unbiased and without prejudice. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the same occasion expressed his feelings.
For these and for many other reasons, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to establish an independent commission responsible directly to Parliament for the research, development and demonstration of clean, renewable alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I oppose the Bill. The Bill is not about permission to set up windmills; it is not even a thinly disguised attack on the nuclear industry —it is a quite open attack on the nuclear industry. It

has nothing to do with energy flexibility and everything to do with consistency with the Labour party's policy to halt the nuclear power programme and to phase out all existing nuclear plants.
It should be clear to us today how much we all depend on nuclear power for everything from street lighting to medical treatment. If leave is given to the hon. Gentleman to introduce the Bill, we shall in effect be encouraging yet another attack on the nuclear industry and all those who work in it. They work in it in a spotlight. They work to exacting standards. It is precisely because those standards are so tight that the slightest deviation or error in meeting them is so widely reported and so openly publicised.
That said, how many died in the nuclear industry last year as a result of radiation? Nobody died in the nuclear industry. How many have died in the coal industry in the last ten years? The total is 443, an average of 44 people a year. An average of 28 people a year die in the engineering industry.
The Bill, if enacted, will undermine a major British industry which directly employees some 40,000 people and expects to employ another 55,000 people over the next 10 years if the Sizewell and PWR programme is approved. It is a major source of jobs in areas of high unemployment, in Tyneside, Teesside, Cumbria and Northumberland. It is a major export business for the country. Companies such as David McKee, NEI and Whessoe in the north-east are three major export earners.
It is clear from the presentation of the Bill that on energy matters the Opposition are the enemy of jobs. The Bill, if enacted, will destroy jobs and put people out of work in Tyneside and Teeside. It will certainly demonstrate to all those who work in the nuclear power industry that the biggest threat to the industry is not safety standards which they can meet but the policy of the Opposition to end the entire programme and wipe out the jobs which depend on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Ernie Ross, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Paddy Ashdown.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTION)

Mr. Frank Cook accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent commission responsible directly to Parliament for the research, development and demonstration of clean renewable alternative sources of energy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Rates

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move:
That the draft Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
This year, as last, the rate limits to which we are seeking the House's approval fulfil the single most important aim of our rate-capping policy—to protect the ratepayer. Rate-capped authorities and their supporters poured scorn on the leaflet we produced in autumn 1984 which carried this message in its title. They responded with a flood of propaganda and howls of outrage. But the message was true. And it remains true for ratepayers in rate-capped areas in 1986–87.
Because of the effects of the transfer of services after the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties, we cannot this year compare the local rate with the local rate last year. But in five of the rate-capped authorities, the general rate—that is, the total paid by ratepayers—next year should be lower than in the present year and in two cases should be a virtual standstill on the 1985–86 rate.
The average domestic householder in Islington will save £134 next year and a householder in Haringey will save £80. The Labour party treasurer will be delighted to know that he will be saving £11,000 on the Southwark party offices. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will have an extra £20 in his pocket.
Rate bills should fall for the second year in succession in three of the rate-capped authorities — Southwark, Islington and Lambeth—and in all cases the rates bill will undoubtedly be lower than it would have been if authorities had been allowed to spend next year as they wished.
The average householder in Islington will be saving a massive £502 compared with the rate Islington has told us it wants to charge, while another well-known Islington inhabitant, Arsenal football club, will be saving £38,000 on its Highbury ground. The Labour party would otherwise by paying an extra £72,700 which, I am told, it can ill afford, and the hon. Member for Blackburn an extra £120. The University of London, which faces an annual rate bill of around £14 million, will be saving £200,000 on the senate house and University college alone, thanks to the restraint we have imposed on Camden.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Is it true that the University Grants Committee grant to the University of London, which represents a reduction in the amount of funding to the university, will be considerably greater than the saving the Minister has just mentioned?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the University Grants Committee has much less money than it would like to spend, but if he thinks that is helped by Camden putting up the rates to spend on its objectives, he seems to me to be farther off beam.
When we debated the equivalent order last year, we did so in an atmosphere — putting it at its mildest — of controlled hysteria. Very few Members were present in the Chamber, and all the Opposition Members were hysterical, although not my hon. Friend the Member for

Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who was his usual calm self. The Labour-controlled authorities selected for rate capping had sworn a policy of intransigent opposition both to the operation of the rates legislation and to their general obligations to set a lawful rate — and indeed to the policy of the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Members once again terrified the House with predictions of the dire effects of rate-capping and the horror that should strike the heart of Government at the prospect of the authorities' defiance.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), that well-known exponent of understatement, declared in the debate:
The Secretary of State is creating a tragedy and a constitutional crisis that he, this Government and the Department of the Environment will live to regret till the end of time".—[Official Report, 25 February 1985, Vol. 74, c. 82.]
The Government and my Department are flattered that the hon. Member should regard us as immortal. This is encouraging.
Needless to say, what happened was rather different. The policy of united confrontation—now no more than a footnote to history—collapsed in disarray. By July 1985 all of the rate-capped authorities had seen reason and set a rate. Nevertheless, some of them took so long to do so that they attracted the unwelcome attentions of the district auditor.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Stonefrost report recommended that to avoid illegality the city of Liverpool should increase its rate. I recommended as strongly as I possibly could to the Liverpool labour group that it should avoid illegality by increasing the rate. Furthermore, Environment Ministers urged Liverpool, in speeches in this House, to avoid illegality by increasing the rate. Why is the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government now rate-capping Liverpool and preventing it from having the option in the next financial year of avoiding illegality and cuts in services?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the order he will see that we are recommending a rate increase for Liverpool.
The public utterances that we hear this year are all different. Councillor Knight, the leader of Lambeth, has said that this year his council will levy a rate within the rate limit, that it will not impose a deficit budget and that it will set a rate before the beginning of the financial year. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) must have explained the facts to him. Liverpool city council is on record as having given similar assurances. However, in Liverpool's case it was not the hon. Member for Copeland, whose communications with the council are just a little strained, who explained the facts to the council. On this occasion it was the gnomes of Zurich. Liverpool city council gave commitments to the bankers of Switzerland.
When it came to the statutory processes that are involved in the second year of rate limitation, the culmination of which we are debating today, the policy of a united front against the Government and in defiance of the Rates Act 1984 was a very dim memory. Far from refusing to have anything to do with the Act, quite sensibly, the majority of the authorities — Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham, Liverpool and Newcastle—took the opportunity offered by the Act to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


the Environment for a redetermination of the expenditure level that he announced for them last July. They discovered that the procedures worked perfectly fairly.
My right hon. Friend announced in December that as a result of the applications that he had received, the expenditure levels for seven authorities, upon which rate limits were to be based, had been increased. After my right hon. Friend's announcement in December of proposed rate limits, all the authorities concerned took the opportunity to comment on the proposed limits. One authority — Newcastle—agreed to the proposed maximum. That is why Newcastle is not included in the order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) and I have had meetings with eight of the authorities to discuss their representations on the proposed rate limits. My right hon. Friend has considered all the representations that the authorities have made but he considers that, in all the circumstances, an increase in any of the proposed limits is not appropriate.
Let me make clear to the House the purpose of our exchanges with the rate-capped authorities. Some authorities claim that by proceeding with today's draft order we are deliberately frustrating their attempts to negotiate with us in some way, on a higher rate limit. That is wrong. The Secretary of State's function is to seek to reach an agreement with the authorities over a different maximum. In doing so, he will consider the representations made to him by the authorities in order to discover whether it is possible to reach agreement on a higher maximum. If, after due consideration, he concludes that it is not possible to reach agreement, it is no part of his role to go on haggling until everyone is exhausted. Against that background my right hon. Friend has considered all of the representations that have been put to him and has decided to proceed with today's draft order.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister able to say whether one London borough—Southwark—which did not apply before the provisional rate was set in December but which decided to apply for consideration by the Government on the day before the final date, 21 January can draw from the fact that there was no change in the rate limit that was provisionally announced in December the conclusion that, had it applied between October and December, there would have been no increase in the maximum level at which it would have been allowed to set its rate? The Minister knows that all the other boroughs had their rate levels increased, following an application at that stage. Could Southwark have gained that benefit had it applied at an earlier stage?

Mr. Waldegrave: The information that Southwark gave to us was fully considered. If it had put different information before us over a longer period, we would have considered it. It is difficult to answer a hypothetical question, but those authorities that gave us the greatest amount of time in which to consider the issues behaved in the most sensible manner.
In the event, it will undoubtedly be claimed that the resulting rate limits that are contained in the order imply the usual draconian and unreasonable cuts. However, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to remember that the House has had the benefit of speeches of that kind on many

occasions. Last year we were told that services in the affected areas would be decimated and that thousands of jobs would disappear.
The most memorable example of this type of claim was the series of advertisements that was placed in the press by the Association of London Authorities. Its most imaginative advertisement featured at the top a life-sized photograph of a rat. Underneath it ran the headline
One of the few beneficiaries of rate-capping.
The text of the advertisement went on to say that rate capping would lead to cuts in a whole range of services: meals on wheels, day care for the mentally and physically handicapped, street lighting, public health inspection, waste disposal, street cleaning, renovation of poor housing and pest control.
Less colourfully, as is his wont, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who wound up for the Opposition this time last year claimed that his local authority, Lambeth, would be able to live within the rate limit only by sacking employees. He begged to know what would happen to the 4,000 pensioners, the 5,000 people in Lambeth with home helps, the 1,500 people receiving meals on wheels and the 1,700 people who attend luncheon clubs. What has happened? I checked the matter and found that all 17 of Lambeth's pest control officers are still in post. The ill-fated rate-capping road show, supported by Lambeth ratepayers to the tune of £54,000, has proved to be so unenticing to the people of the borough that it has been abandoned. The cost to Lambeth ratepayers will be much higher. That little venture will cost them about £117,000.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware, first, that the Government were successfully sued by Lambeth borough council for having got its expenditure limits wrong last year and that they were increased by £8 million? Secondly, is he aware that Lambeth received a substantial sum of money from the Greater London council? That sum of money was very helpful and came from the distressed borough fund. Thirdly, is he aware that a great deal of money came to Lambeth because of the change in the housing subsidy arrangements? Housing subsidies were made available from a sinking fund. That made quite a difference. Why does the Minister have to decide these matters rather than the voters of Lambeth?

Mr. Waldegrave: We had that argument in principle about the Rates Act 1984. The Government's view is that in some of these areas the self-balancing mechanisms of local democracy do not provide a fair balance, and we are putting before the country fundamental reforms for the longer term in order to meet the underlying problems.

Mr. Tony Marlow: We heard earlier today in answer to questions to the Department of Health and Social Security that 51 per cent. of the population of Liverpool and 57 per cent. of the population of Manchester are on housing benefit. It is all very well talking about the voters, but it is the taxpayers, not the voters, who pay.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend addresses the central purpose of the reforms that we have put before the country in the Green Paper. We are trying to bring into closer balance in the longer term those who pay and those who use local services. That must be the way forward.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and I held meetings with the rate-capped


authorities during the last few weeks we made the point of asking each authority what cuts in services they had made during the last year. Not one authority claimed that it had made large cuts in services or jobs. On the contrary, a number of them spoke with pride of the fact that they had got through the year without making cuts and that in some areas there had been a growth in provision.
My right hon. and hon. Friends may want to know what this paradox means. First, it means that last year we faced a cynical and hysterical campaign about cuts. That campaign had no basis in fact.. In fact, so cynical was the campaign carried out by one borough, Islington, that the leader of the council received complaints from her own public relations unit that it had been asked to put out misleading publicity on the effects of rate capping on jobs and services.
Secondly, the fact that rate-capped authorities have escaped without making cuts this year means that those authorities had large reserves of ratepayers' money, some part of which we have compelled them to return to their rightful owners. But that cannot continue for ever. The cry that we now hear from the rate-capped authorities is that the rate limits that we have proposed for next year will require them to make savings in spending—and about time, too.
The aim of rate capping is to force economies in spending on the excessive spenders in order to restore a more reasonable balance between the interests of ratepayers and the provision of services. If it is vital for all authorities to secure good value for money in the provision of services, is it not doubly important for rate-capped authorities, many of which face very severe problems, to make the necessary value for money savings that they can? All of these authorities, which caterwaul about cuts, have plenty of room for savings. The examples may by now be over-familiar, but that will not prevent me from referring to them again and again until the message gets through. There is the Islington housing clerk who sits at home on full pay—£150 a week —doing nothing because of "blacking" by the National and Local Government Officers' Association which the council will not resist.
There was a £200,000 overspend by Islington on the publicity budget, and £20,000 was spent on subsidising council employees to brew real ale. Lambeth was paying people £2 an hour for the delight of coming to hear Mr. Knight and his colleagues make their speeches. [Interruption.] The normal argument is to say that these are small figures, and I think I hear an hon. Member saying that very thing. Here is a figure that is not small. The authorities covered by this order are owed £57 million in rent arrears. That is a scandalous waste of money which could be used to deal with the real problems of those boroughs. What is more, the figures for so-called cuts that authorities are claiming for next year are almost invariably measured against budgets from which, in reality, no economies have been sought this year and which include proposals for real growth next year. Even those authorities that knew as early as last July that they were selected for rate capping again in 1986–87 appear to have made no effort whatever to make the one cut that is necessary—to cut their coats according to their cloth.
Rate-capped authorities and others have also supported spending this year with payments made by the GLC from its so-called "stress borough" programme to which the hon. Member for Norwood referred. It is clear that all the

London rate-capped authorities have used this money to support the existing level of spending in the full knowledge that that source of funds would disappear, and after last July, that all but one were selected for rate-capping again in 1986–87. A number of authorities have said that we should not contemplate setting a final rate limit given the uncertainties, as they see it, surrounding the costs that they will inherit after the abolition of the GLC. We reject that argument. The question is whether any of the remaining uncertainties need to cause rate-capped authorities any concern.
The London Residuary Body today resolved the major uncertainty by announcing its levy and charges for 1986–87. For some months the LRB has been discussing with boroughs its proposed budget, as have the residuary bodies in the metropolitan county areas. My hon. Friend has considered carefully the implications of the residuary body budgets for the rate limits he has proposed.
Another uncertainty is the destination of GLC balances. That uncertainty can only work in favour of rate-capped authorities in London, and all London authorities can look forward to some share in the distribution of remaining GLC funds, whatever the outcome of the present action being brought by the City of Westminster. This benefit will be over and above their income from rates and grants. Thus, the argument about uncertainty falls.
It is against that background that my right hon. Friend has laid the Order we are debating. The rate limits it contains are reasonable and fulfil the aims of the House when it passed the Rates Act two years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has said, the Government are committed to protecting hard-pressed ratepayers who have no effective lever to restrain the high spending of their local authorities. Until proper local accountability is secured, and as long as a handful of local authorities continue to push up spending with no thought about the effects on those who finance their extravagance, central Government will have to act to restrain their excesses. For those reasons I commend the order to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: The House is being asked to approve an order to control the rates and budgets of 11 elected local authorities. Those authorities were elected by almost 2·5 million people. The authorities are Basildon, Camden,. Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Liverpool, Southwark and Thamesdown. The combined budget of those authorities totals £1,103·5 million. Newcastle upon Tyne was also designated under the Act, but has chosen to set a rate below the maximum the Secretary of State would have imposed, thus retaining some of its independence.
Twenty other local government bodies have their budgets and precepts controlled from Whitehall. They include six police authorities, six fire authorities and six passenger transport authorities in Tyne and Wear, west Yorkshire, south Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands. The Inner London education authority and the London fire authority have their precepts limited by Government control. That illustrates the expanding nature of the creeping centralism of this Tory Government.
I make it clear that the Labour party remains fundamentally opposed to this attitude towards local government in general and to this Act in particular. In


govenment, we shall abolish it. It remains my view that Whitehall and Westminster are ill-equipped to deal with these matters. This House is not the place to fix the rates of any one elected local authority in Britain, let alone to those of 11 councils all at the same time, as this order proposes.
The British people do not believe that civil servants and Ministers are well enough informed or have the understanding, let alone the right, to enforce decisions that should be taken in our town halls. Increasingly, evidence shows that better, more effective and more efficient decisions can be taken locally, and those conclusions are substantiated by the reports of the Audit Commission.
In introducing this order the Minister of State made a calm speech and projected a reasonable manner. It was as if all is well and there are no problems. That was the general impression that one gained from his speech, and that was the mood and message he wanted to convey not just to the House but to the country. I reject all that, and I also reject Government claims for this Act and its effects. Those claims have always been unfounded, as are the ideas behind the legislation, which we regard as untenable.
In announcing his decisions on 13 February, the Secretary of State in a press release from his Department said:
For the second year running, our policy has succeeded in protecting ratepayers.
It is worth examining that claim for a moment. Which ratepayers have been protected and at whose expense?

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the Labour party would control local authority spending, or does it not believe that local authorities should be controlled in any way? Will the hon. Gentleman also say how he would protect those ratepayers who are charged savagely increasing rates in those local authority areas where the majority of people are in receipt of housing benefit?

Dr. Cunningham: I thought I had made it clear at the beginning of my speech that we do not accept the provisions of this Act and we shall abolish it. I deliberately said that at the beginning of my speech in order to avoid the sort of intervention we have just had. We do not believe that local authority rates should be set in Whitehall, fixed by Ministers, or controlled by Westminster. We have made that clear since the Second Reading of the Bill which became this Act, and I shall make it clear at every available opportunity. We shall return those freedoms and rights to democratically elected local authorities of whatever political control.

Mr. Marlow: Who will protect the ratepayers?

Dr. Cunningham: I am dealing with the Government's claim that they are protecting the ratepayer. That is wholly false. Last year in Britain average domestic rates rose by 9·5 per cent., virtually twice the rate of inflation. This year the rises in many cases will be much higher than that. The major reason why rates have risen so much under this Government—by over 140 per cent. — is the massive and consistent reduction in rate support grant. Rate support grant has been reduced from 62 per cent. of councils' current expenditure under the last Labour Government, to about 46 per cent. now. No Conservative Minister can honestly claim to have protected ratepayers.
The deliberate intention of the Prime Minister's policy has been to switch national burdens from taxpayers and from high income earners on to the rates. That has been the policy and will continue to be the Government's policy. As we saw in the rate support grant report, approved by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and others just a few weeks ago, that remains the Government's intention.
This year, to disguise the implications of the policy, the Government have robbed the county councils of at least £220 million, which is the figure that has been produced by the Association of County Councils. That sum has been taken from the shires to help rate-capped authorities, and that is shown by the Government's figures. In 1984–85, London authorities' share of total grant-related expenditure was 18·6 per cent. In 1985–86, their share was increased to 19·7 per cent. In 1986–87, it is projected to increase to 20·5 per cent. The share of metropolitan areas outside London has remained static. However, there has been a corresponding fall over the same period in the non-metropolitan areas' share of total grant-related expenditure, which has fallen from 56·2 per cent. to 54·5 per cent. These figures have been produced by the Government in response to my questions.
Government figures show also that the percentage of block grant given to rate-capped authorities has increased in 1985–86 compared with the previous financial year. The Government have been transferring resources from non-rate-capped authorities to rate-capped authorities. That is the effect of the Act. That is what we said when the Bill, as it then was, was passing through the House. That is what is happening and that is what continues to happen, and that is why the Government's claim that they are protecting ratepayers is false. The Government are protecting one small group of authorities at the expense of all local authorities. As they are reducing the size of the cake in addition, it cannot be said that ratepayers are being protected. Ratepayers are being betrayed by the Government's policy.

Mr. Waldegrave: I understand that the hon. Gentleman would like to have much more total grant as he would like to have more public expenditure under every head, as would his party. I am grateful for his confirmation, which is rather important and which is now on the record, that we have protected what he has described as a small group, which we are now debating.

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister's use of "protected" is interesting in this context. It is right that under the Rates Act resources have been brought back to designated authorities. However, their rates increased in the first place because large sums were taken from them. Until the last financial year the GLC, for example, had received no grant from the Government. That is the principal reason for the position of designated authorities being so bad.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have switched their revenue raising to local government, from central taxation to the ratepayer. We all know that. What the hon. Gentleman has not said is how he would intend to protect the ratepayer from the extravagant local authority, particularly in those areas where the majority of people are receiving public support through housing benefit.

Dr. Cunningham: The debate is focused upon Government policy, not Labour party policy. However,


the Labour party remains content that decisions on local expenditure in the form of rates should be determined at local elections through the ballot box. It is not in the least frightened or concerned that the Labour party in local government will have to put its record to the test and ask voters to decide the issue. The reality is that the Tory party is running away from that long-held principle in our democratic society. It is undermining the principle that local communities can elect local authorities to serve them and then make a judgment of their performance at the appropriate time by voting. That has always been our position and it remains so.
This is the second year in succession in which county council ratepayers have been lumbered by Tory party policy. For 1986–87, the finance precepts in the shires demonstrate the argument that I am advancing. I shall refer to some Conservative-controlled county councils to underline that high rate increases do not occur only in Labour-controlled authorities. Conservative-controlled Berkshire has announced a 13·1 per cent. increase in its precept for the coming year. Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire has announced a 30 per cent. increase while Conservative-controlled Dorset, Hereford and Worcestershire, Lincolnshire and West Sussex have announced increases of 20 per cent., 10·9 per cent., 22 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative-controlled Sefton council is heading for a massive 26 to 30 per cent. rate increase? It would be interesting to know why Liverpool has been rate-capped at 15 per cent. while Conservative-controlled Sefton, which is next door, is being forced by the Government, through the RSG settlement, to increase its rate by 26 to 30 per cent.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall deal with the issue which he has raised later in my remarks.
Against the background which I have set out, it is easy to demonstrate that Conservative claims, which have been reiterated this afternoon, about protecting ratepayers are false. Lower rates, if they exist in rate-capped authorities, are being financed by higher rates in the shire counties. The basis of rate capping is an above-average increase in expenditure targets for designated authorities, which brings budget and target closer together, thereby reducing penalties and earning the authorities considerably more RSG than in the previous year.
In the current year, there was an average increase in targets for authorities designated under the Act of 16·4 per cent., compared with a national average increase of only 6·2 per cent. This more favoured treatment resulted in an additional £116·5 million of grant going to designated authorities. These tactics cannot be sustained, nor can the claim that the Government are protecting ratepayers pass even the most cursory scrutiny. The claim is clearly untrue. There are especially strong arguments this year—

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to argue in every direction and to have his argument in every way. He claims that the Government are transferring more grant to meet city problems, which I understood was a policy which he supported and which helps ratepayers in the city areas. He then claims that those

ratepayers are not being helped. I am slightly confused about which side of the argument he is on. The hon. Gentlman veers from one side to the other.

Dr. Cunningham: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is confused.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am confused only by the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Dr. Cunningham: Support for the Act from the author of "The Binding of Leviathan" demonstrates his confusion perhaps better than anything else. The Government are claiming that by helping a tiny proportion of ratepayers to a marginal extent they are protecting ratepayers in Britain as a whole. I say that all the evidence demonstrates that that claim is false. As long as the Act remains in operation, such claims will remain false. They will remain false also for as long as the Government persevere with their expressed policy of cutting RSG year after year. If the Minister cannot understand that, I am sorry. As he has been an Environment Minister for such a long time, he has no excuses for not understanding my argument.
There are especially strong arguments this year why the interim provisions of the Act should have been implemented. A number of authorities, including Liverpool, asked the Secretary of State to set interim maxima for the rates, as he could have done, pending discussion and, we hope, the solution of a number of problems. The Minister has claimed that the uncertainty is being resolved, but that is not the view of local authorities. There is much uncertainty over budgets for the coming financial year for the metropolitan authorities because of the problems associated with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. The fact that these problems remain within four or five weeks of the authorities going out of existence demonstrates how ill-prepared the Government were and how ill-thought-out the legislation was for the regrettable abolition of the authorities.
There is an acknowledged error in the block grant calculations for 1986–87 which has a major effect on London boroughs and may well have an effect on other authorities. At least two authorities are about to start legal proceedings against the Secretary of State. There is an injunction covering the GLC funding to boroughs which the Minister of State mentioned in his speech. The Government, we argue, are being unnecessarily hasty in placing the order before Parliament, given the important, unresolved matters. There is no good reason why interim provisions should not have been used while these matters were being resolved.
It is worth reminding the House that many of the councils affected are among those which represent the most disadvantaged boroughs and communities. For example, on eight measures of relative deprivation, Camden appears in the top 50 six times. Greenwich appears three times, Hackney six times, Haringey five times, Islington six times, Lambeth six times, Lewisham five times, Liverpool six times, Newcastle four times and Southwark seven times. These authorities and communities have particularly difficult and deep-seated problems. Many of them are inner-city communities. These authorities are being penalised and prevented by the Government and the legislation from getting on with the job that they seek to do.


The boroughs were chosen for designation on an arbitrary and unfair basis. The criteria that were used to make the designations were at best unfair and at worst nonsense. For example, comparing the increase in cash growth for those authorities with that of the Conservative-controlled county council of Buckinghamshire, Buckinghamshire's increase in expenditure can be seen to be larger over a period of years, than those of many of the authorities designated. Simply by choosing particular criteria, the Secretary of State is able to trap the authorities that he wants to trap and leave out of the control of the Act the authorities that he does not want to designate.
The spending targets for individual authorities have been completely discredited and the Government have announced that they intend to abandon them. The Minister of State told the House that all would be well and that because nothing very serious happened last year the situation would be the same in the coming financial year. Because of the uncertainties I have mentioned, it is far too early for anyone, including Ministers in the Department, to give any clear impression of the likely effects on local services and jobs in the coming financial year.
The Minister's equanimity and sanguine approach are not shared by local authorities—including the officers in the local authorities — and are not shared by many voluntary organisations in London and the metropolitan areas. Funding for the voluntary sector is now in a very serious plight. Uncertainty about that funding has meant that many organisations have already had to issue redundancy notices to their staffs. There are two main methods by which voluntary organisation are currently funded through the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The transitional funding arrangements for schemes within single boroughs and districts and joint arrangements for cross-borough district schemes after abolition have been discussed. For both these arrangements, the resources available are massively reduced compared with current spending levels.
A total of £66 million worth of bids for transitional funding were submitted to the Department of the Environment by local authorities in October 1985. Only £20 million has been allocated, with wide variations between areas in their levels of allocations. Most rate-capped boroughs received only 27 per cent. of their bids. For example, in Hackney the bid is £5·6 million, but the provisional allocation is only about one fifth of that sum. In Southwark the bid is £2·7 million, but the allocation is less than £500,000. In Camden the bid was £4·4 million and the allocation was only just over £1 million. The same situation obtains in Lambeth.
I am sorry that the Minister of State does not appear to be listening to me, but it is important to get an up-to-date view from the voluntary organisations since the Government made promises to the voluntary organisations and they made promises in another place, which enabled them to get the abolition Bill through that House. It was on the basis of those promises that much of the legislation was agreed. The Government have now comprehensively reneged on their promises.
I spoke today to Mr. Martin Hall of the London Voluntary Service Council. He said:
The Government is showing frightening complacency with regard to the fate of voluntary organisations. The Richmond scheme in London for funding London-wide voluntary bodies,

is moving very, very slowly. There are currently applications from 700 GLC funded London-wide bodies, 510 of them in the non-arts field of voluntary work.
At the conclusion of a meeting to be held tomorrow, a total of only 130 applications will have have been dealt with. There is to be a further meeting of the Richmond scheme on 20 March when a maximum of a further 80 will be considered. Another meeting has been arranged, but is not planned to be held until 17 April when perhaps a further 80 applications will be considered. Of course, 17 April is long after the date when the GLC will have ceased to exist.
In other words, at most 40 per cent. of the applications from voluntary bodies will have been dealt with nearly three weeks of the new financial year already past. What future does that offer for the voluntary organisations and the people that they employ?
On transitional funding, only 22 London boroughs out of the 30 which submitted bids, have had complete notification of approved projects. The Department of the Environment has so far rejected 32 projects, 16 of them in the London borough of Camden alone.
That is the sorry state of affairs with respect to transitional funding to the voluntary sector. Councillors in many of the boroughs controlled under the order are expected to find the shortfall in cash to make up for what is happening as a result of the abolition. That is simply not on. It is not possible and Ministers know that.
I said that Liverpool, in particular, had sought an agreement from the Minister to the publication of an interim order. Liverpool city council has written to the Secretary of State on several occasions, asking for a redetermination of its rates limit. Why have the Government consistently refused, given all the problems that Liverpool has faced, to talk about that possibility? It is scandalous, given the other difficulties that the city council faces, that the discussions have not even taken place.
Discussions on Merseyside about transitional funding and what is to happen, have reached a pretty sorry state, as the Local Government Chronicle recently reported. The Local Government Chronicle quoted County Councillor Keva Coombes, who said:
The co-ordinating committee has been split 3-2 on practically every issue. The only thing they agreed on is that Wirral MBC should keep the register of performing animals in Merseyside.
The only agreement
It appears that there are no performing animals in Merseyside although politicians did not lose the opportunity to make a few gibes at their opponents.
That is amusing and entertaining, but it shows that the Government's policy of reaching agreement with the boroughs to take on the responsibility and to find the money to finance those projects is not working within five weeks of the authorities going out of existence.
Despite all that, we learn from the Financial Times and elsewhere that the Government intend to tighten their grip even further, eroding more freedoms and removing flexibility from local authorities, acting under the instructions of the Treasury. We believe—I hope that the Minister will deny this and I shall happily give way to him — that legislation already exists to take further control of local authorities' capital receipts. The Government are now apparently proposing a massive new series of curbs to remove the flexibility enjoyed by local authorities on capital, creative accounting, housing repairs and non-prescribed capital expenditure; and, if that is


dragged into prescribed expenditure, it will produce massive difficulties for local authorities with major housing repair problems.
We understand that schemes of deferred purchase, leasing and the cascade arrangements are all likely to go. All those things will create major new difficulties for local authorities. When the hon. Lady, the Under-Secretary of State, replies, will she tell the House whether, despite all the objections, the Government intend to enforce their new accounting procedures on local authorities? They will again remove flexibility and impose further controls from
the centre. As Ministers are aware, those proposals have been bitterly opposed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I understand — perhaps Ministers will confirm this — that the chairman of the Audit Commission has also written to the Secretary of State bitterly opposing those proposals. We should like some answers to those questions. I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State does not know, but perhaps Ministers could clarify the point amongst themselves and talk quietly with the Box. We can then have an answer when the hon. Lady replies.
The Minister said something about the events of last year. I agree with him. Many of the most calamitous claims of people in local authorities were not well-founded. Some people's fears were not borne out. That does not mean that it has been easy for local authorities. It would be wrong and foolish to conclude that because that happened last year, it will happen in the future, especially in view of the additional controls that we believe the Government intend to use.
In addition, during the past 12 months there has been an unprecedented volume of litigation. Councils have been taking the Secretary of State to court again and again. The Government, committed to reducing the role of the state, are increasing and expanding the role of the state in affairs which would be far better left to local authorities.
The order is unsupported by any explanatory material. In the documents available to the House there is no justification for what the Government propose.
I can, perhaps, sum all this up by quoting Mr. Malcolm Grant, the senior lecturer in law at the University of Southampton who said—I agree with him—about the Rates Act 1984:
Rate capping cannot be regarded as more than a short term expedient. It represents an extreme attempt to maintain control over a block grant system which is fundamentally flawed. The block grant arrangements have manifestly failed in their objective to provide a rational means of financial support for local government services which will balance the needs and resource of the different local government areas. That much is widely recognised, not least by the Audit Commission, by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and"—
finally and belatedly—
by the Government".
The Opposition have an entirely different view of what the local authorities' role and priorities should be. As Conservative Members have expressed an interest in our views, let me make them clear. We believe that elected local authorities should be major representative political institutions in a plural democratic society. They should provide valued public services for the protection and well-being of all citizens. They should be a means for people to participate in self-government at local level. Of course, there is and always will be tensions between central and local authority. How we deal with those tensions is an important test of how well we govern.
In the absence of a written constitution, the relationship between central and local authority has never been clearly defined. That means that significant changes imposed by the Government have been able to be enforced. Local accountability has, far from being enhanced, been continuously eroded.
In recent years, we believe that that relationship has become unbalanced, with central Government taking more powers of discretion and control away from local government, reducing its role and freedom.
We believe that the country faces a fundamental choice. Is local government to be vested with genuine local autonomy and its own responsibilities and distinct legitimacy, based on elections and the ability to raise independent revenue, or is it merely to be the agent of central Government? The Labour party remains committed to genuine elected local government with its own revenue-raising powers, the income from which should be free from central control.
We remain determined to enhance freedom. the role and the functions of local government. We shall modernise and restructure local authorities. We shall strengthen the position of elected local councillors. We shall work for a constructive and developing partnership between a Labour Government at Westminster and local councils to improve the quality and range of community services for all our citizens.
It is for those reasons, and because of the shambles that the Government have created, that we ask the House to reject the order.

Mr. David Amess: I welcome the opportunity to explain why I support the rate limitation order as it affects my constituency, and remind the House of just how successful the new town of Basildon is. Without fear of contradiction, I can say that I am privileged to represent what is today regarded as the finest and most dynamic town, not just in the south but in the whole of the United Kingdom. All roads lead to Basildon. The development corporation has done a magnificent job under Dame Elizabeth Coker and Mr. Douglas Galloway's stewardship in transforming the dreams and aspirations of thousands of displaced Londoners into the reality of a new town. Not everything they have done is perfect—I fully appreciate the resentment and anxiety felt by original Basildonians — but, given the task that it was, the development corporation has achieved much of which to be proud.
The development corporation's task is not completed. I ask the Minister to repeat to the Minister responsible the fact that I believe that it is too soon to wind up the corporation on 31 March. I am also worried by the representations that I am receiving about the number of compulsory purchase orders that have been imposed in the Laindon area. I hope that the development corporation will be allowed to continue a little longer.
Basildon has the largest covered shopping centre in Europe, which has brought many new jobs and increased prosperity to the constituency. It is also planned that Basildon shall have the largest covered sports stadium in Europe. Such a prestigious sports centre would be used to stage many great sporting events. During the past 12 months two new police stations have been opened in Laindon and Pitsea. When I was elected to the House, Basildon had the worst crime rate in Essex, but I am


delighted to say that that is no longer the case. In the past year we have enjoyed a great reduction in the number of crimes committed, while the police have enjoyed the best crime prevention and detection rate for the whole of Essex. Great credit should go to those responsible for that wonderful achievement.
Basildon has excellent communications and these have been enhanced by the opening of the M25, the future expansion of Stansted and the prospect of the Channel tunnel. The best news for Basildon is that over the past 12 months unemployment has fallen by 5·8 per cent. There are many reasons for this, but the role of the development corporation in attracting new business cannot be undervalued. However, there are still not enough jobs for those who wish to work, nor will there be if high rates are allowed to continue to destroy jobs, especially in small businesses.
This is the second consecutive year in which Basildon's rates have been capped. The present context for the rate capping is different from that of last year. Last year's limit was met with a mixture of relief and disappointment by my constituents. The council had wanted to increase rates by 33·66 per cent. but instead there was a rate increase of 17·59 per cent. This year my constituents are delighted by the fact that the limit has been set at 4·8 per cent., which is less than the rate of inflation. A number of businesses and many families who have recently arrived in my constituency will stay on the promise that the burden of rates will be reduced. They are pleased that the Government have shown good faith this year.
Last year Basildon district council, along with all the other rate-capped authorities, did not use the Government's appeal procedure—a collective Socialist view was taken on the appeals procedure. The council embarked on a massive public relations exercise to discredit the Government's action with its "Let's defend Basildon" campaign. All of this was launched at the ratepayers' expense. This year the council has adopted a much quieter approach. I understand that out of the 12 capped authorities, seven have appealed against the decision and all have received more money.
It is noticeable that Basildon was not one of the authorities to appeal in spite of the fact that the authority maintains that it has been unfairly capped. The leader of the council has claimed that there is no appeal procedure. I wonder whether the Minister would comment—now or when she replies — on what interpretation could be placed on the actions of an authority that has claimed that it is being treated unfairly but yet refuses to use the appeals procedure. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that the authority has substantial reserves of more than £3 million and did not even spend up to its budget of last year.
The Audit Commission report on Basildon highlighted a number of interesting points and showed that considerable savings could be achieved. The report showed that Basildon spends 197 per cent. more on steet sweeping than other comparable authorities—we must presumably vacuum our roads. Basildon spends 164 per cent. more on parks and open spaces, 142 per cent. more on sports and recreation and 122 per cent. more on concessionary fares. This is all very nice until one remembers that somebody has to pay for these services.
Perhaps the most extraordinary and damaging expenditure was that spent by the council on public relations. By any standards it must be regarded as going over the top for a district council to need to employ 12 people in its PR department. That service cost £307,800. There was more to this than meets the eye. I am indebted to the organisation Campaign Against Council Corruption for bringing various matters to my attention. The organisation found out that the local authority responded to an advertisement in Marxism Today and decided to employ a PR company at a further cost to the ratepayers of £146,000. When questioned, the authority stated that there was no ulterior motive and that no bias would be shown in its dealings with the PR company.
CACC asked the PR company, Union Communications, about its services and it eagerly sent a letter stating what a marvellous company it was and how it worked closely with constituency Labour parties— for instance, in Basildon. The company said it had shown Basildon council how to increase the Labour vote by 10 per cent. This is abosolutely disgraceful. I am sure the House will understand that with this sort of nonsense continuing at ratepayers' expense my constituents—

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman giving way, especially since he has spent a large part of his speech making allegations and attacks on an elected Labour council. In view of what he has said, how can he explain the Audit Commission's view that Basildon is a well-run authority? How does he explain that the electors of Basildon continue to elect a Labour council?

Mr. Amess: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to these matters.

Dr. Cunningham: Answer.

Mr. Amess: I will certainly answer. Union Communications came after the audit report. I had a completely different interpretation of the Audit Commission's report on Basildon. We spent 150 hours in Committee discussing the Rate Bill and I remember that it was clearly shown that the Audit Commission considered that there were many areas in which the local authority could find savings without affecting all the necessary services of Basildon. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my attacks on an elected Labour authority yet the first quarter of my speech was spent stating what a fine town I represented. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can also defend the unmitigated and never-ending attacks that have been made by the council on the duly elected Member for Basildon.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Member will not be that for much longer.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman says that I will not be the hon. Member for much longer, but I would remind him that in 1983, four weeks before the general election, in the local elections, I lost the one Conservative councillor in Basildon. The Labour party got 52 per cent. of the total votes cast. Four weeks later I was elected Conservative Member of Parliament for Basildon. If I were the hon. Member for Copeland — much as the Labour party intend to continue sending what it considers front line speakers to my constituency —I would not bank on the result in 1988.
If ever there was an example of a local authority speaking with a forked tongue it is that of Basildon over


its involvement with City institutions. The local authority, which never loses an opportunity to castigate the City, has now established a company called BEDCO. The company has been paid, under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, a grant of £65,000 a year for employment initiatives. Basildon community trust has had £380,000 paid to it for grants for three years for various bodies. BEDCO has announced that it wants to borrow £15 million from City institutions for various projects, for example Basildon astrodome, which has recently featured in the media. Furthermore, the council wants a borrowing facility with City institutions of £14 million—£8 million for a theatre on a deferred purchase scheme, and £6 million to develop various community facilities. The council's official spokesman said that all those enterprises would be embarked on at no extra cost to ratepayers. That is absolute nonsense. My constituents would eventually face huge interest charges, and future generations of ratepayers would have to bear debts. That is disgraceful, irresponsible action.
The council faces a wages and salaries bill of £10·7 million. Seven hundred thousand pounds is to be spent on developing computer technology, yet staffing levels will remain constant. Last year the welfare rights advisory service spent nearly £350,000. The local authority, instead of concentrating on mastering the provision of services for which it is responsible, seeks to interfere in areas where it has no power to act. There is a cabin in Fodderwick car park which houses the so-called self-support group, monitoring something over which it has no power.
The latest issue of Link contains a questionnaire asking people whether they are satisfied with the provision of their children's education. It is many years since the district council was responsible for educational provision, which is now provided by Essex county council, which was not consulted about the questionnaire. That is further evidence of the disgraceful public relations exercise on which the council has embarked. There was never any input from the five elected Labour county councillors in educational matters. They have only now become interested because some worried parents came to my surgery and because they wish to take advantage of the teachers' dispute for electoral mileage.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman referred to local authority expenditure on promoting the take-up of welfare benefits. Does he think that everybody in is constituency is receiving the benefits to which they are entitled? If some people are not, who is responsible for improving the take-up?

Mr. Amess: I would like my constituents to take advantage of the benefits available to them. I do not think that the district council is giving my constituents the right information about the benefits to which they are entitled, and I shall demonstrate that. The information is misleading them. It is the responsibility of the authorities administering the benefits to——

Mr. Dobson: But those authorities are doing nothing.

Mr. Amess: Then we must encourage them to circulate more information. The district council should concentrate on mastering the provision of the services for which it is responsible before interferring in other areas.
I shall now demonstrate my point. From 1 April, Essex county council will abolish home help charges—[HON.

MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that that meets with applause from Opposition Members. Yet Basildon council's welfare rights service is apparently confusing people by telling them to stop paying now. There is no overall control on Essex county council because at is a hung council, and we are quickly seeing the increased spending consequences of not having firm political control of the council.
I have heard it argued that the money spent on welfare rights could be better spent on at least 20 extra social services workers controlled by the responsible authority and providing much needed, constructive assistance in Basildon. The cynical attitude of Basildon council was highlighted when a discussion document was leaked from the Labour group about its problem of coping with a constituency which was becoming more Conservative in its voting pattern. The conclusion amounted to possible recommendations to the Boundary Commission to rejig seats in such a way as to keep the local authority under Labour control. That is disgraceful cynicism.
The White Paper on the reform of local government finance has been warmly received in my constituency, as it is fair to both private and commercial ratepayers. In Basildon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is seen as a much younger version of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai carrying two tablets of stone—the Local Government Bill to outlaw political propaganda on the rates, and this rate limitation order. They will be bitter tablets for local authorities that have abused and wasted ratepayers' money, but for my constituents those tablets will act as a positive elixir, giving much needed relief. I hope that the House will take those tablets tonight and vote for the order.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Rates are supposed to meet local needs, and it is not for a Government to exercise arbitrary authority over local authorities about how they should set about meeting those needs.
The people of Hackney are the poorest, most deprived people in Britain. According to the Department of the Environment analysis, which is based on five counts, Hackney is one of the worst 10 boroughs in Britain. It has 15,000 people on housing lists, 8,000 empty houses and flats in need of repair, 5,000 one-parent families, the highest infant mortality rate and the greatest number of unemployed in London—25 per cent., or one in four of the adult population. It is the lowest paid area in London, it has the highest number of mentally ill people and schizophrenics, and a high percentage of old-age pensioners, many of whom suffer from a lack of heating in their homes. The Government are responsible for all those problems. What is more, money can solve them. That is my answer to Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who say that one cannot merely throw money at problems. Money needs to be thrown into Hackney and at those problems if they are to be solved.
The order will limit the lives, health and happiness of tens of thousands of Hackney people. The rate support grant seeks to even out social problems throughout Britain and to provide a fair share of the nation's public expenditure. However, the Government are cheating and


depriving the people of Hackney. Their previous rate-capping exercise was so damaging that they had to return some £116 million to some boroughs. That was about equal to a 6·2 per cent. increase.
Hackney got only a 3·5 per cent. increase from the Government, which is less than the 5·2 per cent. inflation rate. That is how much of a blind eye the Tory Government turn to the people in Hackney, which is the most deprived borough. Hackney borough council says that this limitation order will force a cut in rate expenditure of some 11 per cent. That will mean cuts in services and jobs in the area.
The borough treasurer has estimated that the borough will need £150 million to take over the Greater London council's functions and run normal services. The order means that the council will get only £128 million. That means piling more poverty on top of that which already exists in the area. The Government are abolishing the GLC, but they are not giving Hackney borough council the money that it needs to carry out properly the jobs previously done by the GLC. The Government continue to throw more and more responsibilities on local authorities without providing the finance necessary to do the job.
Every local authority needs financial reserves and working balances. The Government have said that that is not necessary for Hackney borough council, yet in November 1985 they were advised that the council was £2·2 million overdrawn on the general rate fund. The borough treasurer estimates an overspend of £2·9 million in 1985–86, and that restoring the working balances will require an additional £5 million in the budget for 1986–87.
Hackney's poverty has meant that its borough council is going on to the money market to borrow some £50 million to pay private contractors to do building and the other necessary jobs. It is scandalous that the Government are forcing a local authority to try to deal in that way with urgent social problems such as poverty and deprivation. That will mean greater indebtedness for a borough that is already massively in debt.
For my part, I demand that this Tory Government stop oppressing the poor of Hackney. It is their responsibility to provide the money so that the poverty and deprivation can be overcome. I know that they are turning a deaf ear to what I am saying, but they will have to pay the consequences in the next general election when the people of this country and of Hackney will get rid of them and their rotten policies, which are causing this deprivation and poverty.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I discovered on Friday that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) and I share the distinction of representing nuclear-free zones, for all the good that they do for our constituents. I always advise my constituents, when they travel down to my constituency, to catch a fast train and not a stopping one so that they do not have to stop at Brentwood, which is not a nuclear-free zone.

Mr. Jack Straw: That would be on the wrong line.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman realises that my constituency is well served by railway stations and lines. There are two railway lines to my constituency. One goes to Billericay and the other goes to Basildon, through Laindon, which is part of my constituency.
The hon. Member for Copeland made it clear that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would abolish the Rates Act 1984 and make orders such as this unnecessary. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the hon. Gentleman claimed that he does not believe in curbing rates.

Mr. Allen McKay: He did not say that.

Mr. Proctor: He went down that road.

Mr. McKay: No. He did not say that.

Mr. Proctor: Tony Crosland made it quite clear that the party was over with regard to local authority spending. The views of the hon. Member for Copeland clearly mean that the party will begin again if a Labour Government are ever returned. That will represent a penal cost to ratepayers. The announcement comes just a few days after the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the taxpayer would be clobbered for the Labour party's expenditure programme.
Why is it important that we deal with local authorities? Why have the Government had to come to the House with measures to deal with local authorities' expenditure biils? They spend rather a lot. Local authorities spent £39 billion in 1984–85, or 11 per cent., of gross domestic product. They employ 3 million, or 14 per cent., of the work force. The idea that Parliament can wash its hands, in a Pontius Pilate act, of what local authorities do is just not on.
The hon. Member for Copeland also said that it is not easy for local authorities. It is not easy for ratepayers, taxpayers, industries and entrepreneurs in my constituency to create job opportunities when Basildon district council is on their neck. Two thirds of my constituency falls within the Basildon district council area. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) represents the rest of the council's area.
The order would provide a maximum rate of 52·75p for Basildon in 1986–87. That compares with 50·33p in 1985–86—an an increase of 4·8 per cent., which is just below the current rate of inflation. The maximum has been set because Basildon is a high-spending council. The authorities have been selected for a second year of rate limitation because they spend more than 20 per cent. of grant-related expenditure and are budgeting to spend more than 1 per cent. over target or have increased spending by more than 30 per cent. since 1981–82. Basildon was budgeting to spend more than 66·8 per cent. above GRE in 1985–86 and is 1·5 per cent. over target in 1985–86. It therefore falls well within the parameters laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman shows great expertise in the record of Basildon council and why it has been rate-capped. Basildon has increased its expenditure by 48 per cent. since the new systems came into force in 1981. The adjacent Conservative-controlled council of Brentwood has increased its spending by 80 per cent. in the same period, according to the Government's figures. Why is Basildon rate-capped when Brentwood is not?

Mr. Proctor: Basildon, unlike Brentwood, is a very high spender. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is talking in terms of percentages. If one looks at the rates paid compared with Basildon, one sees that Brentwood is lower. In absolute terms, Basildon is a high spender and these orders and rate capping were intended to trap and contain a certain number of high-spending local authorities. If the order is approved, as I hope that it will be, Basildon district council will be unable to fix a higher rate than that prescribed in the order 52·75p. However, it can fix a lower rate. There is nothing to stop it.
I first want to underscore the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister when he opened the debate. He said that last year there was a great hysterical outcry from councils about the effect of rate capping. The leader of Basildon district council and the Labour group, Councillor Tinworth, sent a letter to each of my constituents in the Basildon district council area. He said that the objective of the Government was
to force our council to cut back services to the tune of £1 million or more. That's a horrific cut, and it could be catastrophic.
Councillor Timworth went on to show a number of areas where he thought the council would have to cut or severely restrict services.
That was a self-fulfilling fear by the leader of the Labour group. The one act that the council performed as a result of looking at the budget again was to close the swimming pool in Billericay. The swimming pool was council-run and had been open for only three or four years and it was closed as a politically punitive act by Basildon district council because it thought that there was no political advantage in Billericay. The nine councillors in Billericay are Conservative, so the Labour group did not think it would take control of the seats in Billericay. Therefore, the council thought it could close the swimming pool with impunity and blame the Government. I shall look later at the "caring" attitude of Basildon district council in denying my constituents in Billericay the right to go to their swimming pool and to leave closed such a new capital asset with the standing charges continuing month after month and year after year. It is a diabolical party political act that has been perpetrated on my constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) referred to a number of areas where the council has been excessive in its spending. He referred to information. The public relations department of Basildon district council seems to have been a major growth area in recent years. In 1983–84, the council spent £180,000 on it and employed nine members of staff. It is now proposing to spend £310,000 in 1986–87 and employ 12 members of staff. That is not the end of it. There are other areas where expenditure on information is to be found. For example, £88,850 is to be spent on the advisory services, welfare and legal advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred to union communications and the amount of ratepayers' money spent on what is effectively a party political act. Because certain people do not have the resources to get up and campaign around the constituency, they sit at home, using ratepayers' money and union communications to project the Labour policy of the council.

Mr. Amess: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree that the so-called PR exercise that the council indulges in always has the same message. It says, "Vote

Labour", it is critical of the Government and it disgracefully claims credit for things which it has not organised, funded or exercised any control over.

Mr. Proctor: The council is welcome to its view, but it should campaign at its own expense or use money that it has raised politically. The money should not come from the ratepayer because that is not right. The amount of money in the different budget headings on information comes to over £500,000 for 1986–87. That is a monstrous waste of my ratepayers' money.

Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government spend a little money here and there on propaganda campaigns? For example, does he think that it is sound spending to advertise the youth training scheme? The Government are not presenting a balanced view of it in the television advertisement. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) talked about the oddity of the relationship between the Basildon district council and union communications. What does the hon. Gentleman think about the relationship between this Tory Government and Saatchi and Saatchi, which has received a substantial number of public contracts?

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, when he is on the Front Bench, and his colleagues who speak on youth training matters, seem to support the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman has now nipped a row back to the Back Benches, has taken off his collective Front Bench responsibility and started to attack the youth training scheme. I would have thought that every hon. Member who wants to encourage training would want the widest possible spread of information on such matters. That is quite different from the type of Labour party propaganda that is coming through our letter boxes, appearing in newspapers and on leaflet after leaflet from the public relations office of the Basildon district council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon also mentioned expenditure on computers. It is right for local authorities, Basildon district council included, to spend money on computers. In 1986–87, it proposes to spend about £700,000 on computers, compared with a figure in 1985–86 of only £65,000. That is correct. However, the staffing levels are stable. The council is not introducing computers to try to reduce the staffing levels; it is having computers as well as the staff. The Basildon district council spends £7·2 million on salaried staff and £3·5 million on manual staff. Staffing takes 25 per cent. of the total budget of the local authority expenditure. Those are sizeable sums and I have no doubt that savings could be made in some areas.
In more modest terminology, I cannot for the life of me understand why Basildon district council is running an EEC course for women which costs £21,700. I should be interested to know the attitude of the Equal Opportunities Commission to that expenditure. I am not reassured when I am told that half the expenditure — presumably, another £21,700—comes from the European Economic Commission. That just underlines the stupidity of such courses.
Basildon district council has closed and kept closed the Billericay swimming pool and said that it is saving £80,000 to £100,000 in a full year, but I cannot understand why at the same time it has announced a tree planting scheme which will cost £1 million over 10 years. I accept that trees should be planted, but we must take account of


priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I are fortunate in having constituencies that are well-endowed with trees. Basildon district council does not have the right priorities.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has recently resigned as Secretary of State for Defence, was the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside, his major contribution was to plant a tree for every job lost on Merseyside?

Mr. Proctor: I am not aware of that action. I am sure that the trees will grow and be of value to the people who live on Merseyside.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has the jobs and the trees.

Mr. Proctor: We have some jobs and trees, although the unemployment figures in Billericay and Basildon are far too high. The good news from Basildon about the reduction in the unemployment rate is not enough. We want unemployment in Billericay and Basildon to decrease, and I believe that every hon. Member would say the same.
I am sorry to keep referring to my swimming pool in Billericay, but the reasons for the closure are curious. The Labour council says that it is all the fault of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and that I should direct my criticisms towards them. If I thought for one moment that it was their fault, the lives of my right hon. and hon. Friends would be uncomfortable until my swimming pool was reopened, but I can acquit my colleagues of the blame.
The saving from closing the swimming pool is expected to be £80,000 to £100,000 in a full year. More than £3 million is currently available to benefit the ratepayers by a rates reduction and/or by reopening the swimming pool in Billericay. That amount includes £1,496,000, which is the revised estimate, showing that the net expenditure for 1985–86 is nearly £1·5 million less than the original net estimate of £13,662,000. There is, therefore, about £1·5 million of underspending.
In addition, there are two special funds. As part of the process of closing the accounts for the 1984–85 financial year, Basildon district council found it possible to establish special funds under schedule 13 of the Local Government Act 1972. Such funds have been invested and the balances as at 31 March 1986 are estimated at £545,000 for the general expenditure reserve account and £275,000 for the repairs and renewals fund, totalling £820,000.
In addition, the direct labour organisation has a fund. Surpluses have been paid into the fund. The accumulated surplus as at 31 March 1985 was £295,000. The estimate for March 1986 is as high as £325,000. That amount is available as well. There is also a special item because the council made an out-of-court settlement with a construction company because of defective works on council dwellings, and this adds a further £470,000.
In total, £3 million in the reserves is available for allocation. There is also additional rate support grant

through the block grant mechanism, which has increased from £873,000 to £1,268,000, giving an extra £395,000. This makes a total of about £3·3 million.
The policy executive of Basildon district council meets tonight to discuss those figures. I do not believe that it is necessary for the council to maintain those high balances. In the total budget for 1986–87, there is already an item for more than £1,700,000, providing for inflation, and a further £350,000 for contingencies. Clearly, if the political malice of the Labour leaders of Basildon district council is put aside, there will be enough money, first, to reopen Billericay swimming pool next week — it would cost £80,000 to £100,000—and, secondly, to reduce the rate demand by at least 10p in the pound. This will galvanise entrepreneurs, industry and commerce in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon into providing more job opportunities.
Like the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I do not believe that the rating system is perfect. Unlike him, I believe that we should congratulate the Government on bringing forward a Green Paper which attempts to tackle the problem from which the Opposition are running away.

Mr. Allan Roberts: What will happen in the next election?

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman would be surprised at the number of votes that will be garnered on that issue during the next general election. We shall see in the next election who is right and who wins the argument.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Proctor: I have given way once to the hon. Member for trees. I am coming to my conclusion and I have been speaking for longer than I expected.
May I ask the Under-Secretary: is rate capping, in the way in which it is handled at the moment, rather a blunt instrument? What consideration has been given to the attitude of those people who believe that selectivity might be introduced by rate-capping various heads of expenditure or budget areas in a council's expenditure pattern?
I believe that reform of the rating system is long overdue. Under the present imperfect system rate capping is necessary to protect the ratepayers of Basildon, Billericay and Wickford whom I represent. I am delighted to be able to support the order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) drew attention to the length of his speech. He was interrupted several times. I draw the House's attention to the fact that a considerable number of hon. Members wish to take part. If we can have reasonably brief speeches I will be able to accommodate them all.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, it is not surprising that, compared with the identical debate a year ago, the steam, some of the heat and much of the passion has gone out of this subject. A year ago we were asked to pass an order about rate capping. It was the first time that the Rates Act 1984 had been used to fix the rates of local authorities. At that time two Opposition arguments were


put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and I put then the arguments that pertain equally today. They were arguments of principle and arguments of practice. In different ways all of us tried to show the probable outcome of what the Government were seeking to do. The arguments of principle remain the same and they are now stonger than ever.
In some cases rate capping has an apparent advantage and an appeal when it reduces rates and people directly benefit in their pockets. However, the disadvantages of the rate-capping system, its arbitrariness and the fundamental anomaly of the setting by Parliament of the budgets of local authorities, which by their nature should raise and spend money and decide on their priorities, are still evident.
I make no bones about the fact that, as last year, on behalf of my colleagues, I oppose rate capping. I oppose the principles of the Rates Act, in spite of the fact that rates in my constituency will be reduced as a result of the order. I oppose those principles not only in principle but in practice, because they are part of an increasingly muddled system of local government finance. There is no logic to the system of which rate capping forms a part.
While rates are to be held down in some borough and district councils — eight London boroughs and three other councils—the shires are paying the cost. We heard the screams a few weeks ago of ratepayers in the shire counties of England and Wales who were having to pay because of the manipulation of a system of local government finance, which annually allows the system to be adjusted to suit the needs and the wishes of central Government.
I suspect that the position next year will be more difficult. I would be grateful for a hint from the Minister about what shall be done. The criteria have so far being linked to targets, but targets have now gone. If the Minister proposes that rate capping should continue for a third year, a different system must be devised. I am intrigued to know what that system will be.
My greatest objection is that the Government are interfering with the decisions of local authorities. It comes as no surprise that the Government are doing so mainly in London in the year when we are only three months away from local elections, which will determine the political future of the 32 London boroughs for the next four years.
Rate capping must never be considered in isolation. The debate is the last in a series during the past weeks and months. The rate support grant orders, the debates about the ILEA precept, the precepts imposed by the joint police boards and by London Regional Transport and the levy which will come from the London Residuary Body, all add up to central Government's imposition of control mechanisms on local government expenditure.
The practice this year is different. First, last year there was hyped-up protestation from representatives of the Labour party whose councils were affected. This year all the councils affected are Labour-controlled. They said last year that it would be impossible to comply with rate-cap limits without cuts in jobs and services. That has not been the case. It is tragic that many Labour councillors' reaction to the Government-imposed rate limits was that phoney war, leading to delayed rate setting and tens of thousands of pounds, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds, being lost from council budgets, which has reduced the money available to be spent this year.
It comes as no surprise that the national leaders of the Labour party— as always, after the event—have now been forced to say that the campaign and budget strategy adopted by those Labour authorities was misconceived and not in the interests of the people whom the councillors were elected to represent.
We have lived through that and this year we are addressing rate capping in the light of that experience. I hope that the Government will also learn, because it is not only Labour authorities that must take the responsibility for what happens in the months ahead.
The second difference from last year is that we are now living on the verge of the effects of the abolition of the Greater London council and, in Liverpool's case, the abolition of the metropolitan county of Merseyside. No one knows the real cost of the abolition of. those authorities. The figures that the Government have added into the equation of the cost will not reflect the real costs. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was right to highlight the fact that the funds of the voluntary sector will be the hardest hit. On other occasions in the House I have raised matters of urban aid and of law centres, which are not covered by the budget of the Department of the Environment. Many voluntary bodies do not know whether they will receive enough money to survive. They do not know whether they will receive any grant, because the grant source is no longer available. They may fold early because of uncertainty, or later because the money will not be there. To pretend that abolition has not cost money is wrong, because the truth will out and it will become apparent that it will cost much more than the £100 million predicted and that services will suffer accordingly.
The third difference is that last year we were discussing 13 authorities, nine in London and four outside. This year we are discussing 12, including the new authorities of Liverpool and Newcastle. Newcastle has negotiated an arrangement and is not covered by the order, so we are left with 11 authorities, eight in London and three outside. It is likely that, because of the Local Government Bill, this year's rates will be fixed by 1 April. The Minister knows that I do not oppose that duty.
We all recall the difficulties and the costs resulting from the late fixing of the rates last year. However, it will not be good enough to learn the cost of last year's late rate setting months after the elections in May. We need to know in good time—within a matter of days or at most weeks —of the courts' decisions in the Lambeth and Liverpool cases and what the costs will be for ratepayers in those boroughs in which the district auditor has said that there were substantial losses. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that, as soon as the court cases are decided—I appreciate that that may include an appeal—we shall quickly have an adjudication on the other losses, so that ratepayers can soon judge the results of what happened last year.
Having turned the screw once last year, the Government are trying to turn it a second time. The difference is that, however easy it might have been for councils to cope with the first turn of the screw, inevitably it will be more difficult to cope with problems adequately after a second turn. We must remember that with all the boroughs about which we are talking, except possibly the two out-of-London local authorities, although not Liverpool, we are talking about areas with substantial poverty, deprivation and hardship for many.


Liverpool has been appallingly mismanaged in the past couple of years. It has had the worst kind of financial incompetence and mismanagement that any local authority could have had. Only now is the Labour leadership saying that publicly—as ever, harmfully late for the people of the city. The mismanagement goes on, but I hope that it will soon be brought to an end by the combination of a variety of financial pressures and by the results of the coming elections, which will pass judgment on what has happened in the past few years. That does not mean to say that Liverpool will be able to cope if the Government are not more generous. Rate capping and the use of balances in previous years mean that it will not be possible to set rates at the limit that has been imposed without cuts in services and increases in prices. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is not acceptable for the many people in the city who are already not getting the level of services that they want.
I presume that the Minister will confirm that so far this year the Labour-controlled Liverpool city council has done nothing about fixing a rate. Not one budget document has been circulating and there has been no official consultation or consideration, publicly or in committees, of the possible rate, with only a month to go. It appears as if the councillors wish to behave like ostriches — perhaps believing that in a week or two they will not be responsible for setting the new rate. That may be one result of the court case.
While internal party fighting is going on, with certain people concentrating more on putting their case to Walworth road tomorrow, schools are running out of basic necessities, lifts in high-rise blocks are not working because the council has not paid the bills, and children's homes do not have sheets on the beds and cannot buy new ones because the council is not honouring its financial commitments. All the time, the deputy leader of the council has a chauffeur-driven car and £300,000 has been spent on propaganda— a real loss of £750,000 to the ratepayer. The arts for example, the Liverpool philharmonic orchestra—are in jeopardy, the employees of agencies at the moment looked after by the county council are at risk. I hope that sanity will come, and that when it does, the Government will respond with some compassion, because the people of Liverpool are at present the victims.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) referred to his borough and constituency, and the conditions there are desperate. There have been no special grants for housing, much of which is appalling and needs a great deal of work. The borough needs housing subsidy and money for social services, and with very high levels of need, such as in single-parent families, there are enormous pressures on social services and the like. I hope that the Government do not expect Hackney to borrow this year to spend what it could not spend last year. I said last year that I did not believe that Hackney could cope adequately with the imposed rate limit. It has been trying, but this year it will be less able to cope with the Government's new limits.
The two boroughs about which I know most are both south of the river—Southwark and Lambeth. There is no doubt that Lambeth teaches us one lesson above all. That is that the people of Lambeth, although they have shown no great affection for the Government and their

policies, nevertheless are clearly of the view that the Labour authority has wasted an enormous amount of money.
The South London Press shows that the £54,000 spent on consulting ratepayers in the campaign of the past few weeks has produced empty halls with hardly a handful of members of the public appearing. However it continues:
Cllr. Knight says the absence of angry ratepayers confirms their support for the no cuts policy.
The probability is that the absence of ratepayers from the meetings, which has caused the meetings to be aborted as a campaigning plank, shows that the ratepayers have no confidence in the campaigning tactics or policies of Councillor Knight and his friends.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the real test of the popularity of the council rests not with the South London Press but with the ballot box. At the by-elections there has been overwhelming support for the Labour party.

Mr. Hughes: I recall a by-election in the Vauxhall constituency last year that had the largest electoral turnout in a by-election in Lambeth borough since the last general election. I also recollect that my friend and colleague Mr. Mike Tuffrey was elected, taking the seat from the Labour party.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The simple fact is that, out of five or six by-elections at borough level, the Labour party increased its share of the vote and gained a vote of around 50 per cent., which the Liberal party did not. He should recognise that he is playing a cheap trick.

Mr. Hughes: I am willing to stand by the judgment of the electorate in May, and I confidently predict that my party will gain more seats in Lambeth from its present position than the Labour party will from its position. We already have some seats, so we are not starting from nil.
My borough of Southwark has an enormous problem over and above the problems of other boroughs. We have the largest amount of ex-GLC housing stock, which is in need of massive amounts of money being spent on renovation and repairs. The limit that it has been allowed this year does not reflect even pay and price increases over the past year.

Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Member in favour of rate capping?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had been here at the beginning of my speech, he would know that, not only am I not in favour of rate capping, but, like him, I am not even in favour of it although it benefits us personally by putting down the rates that we have to pay on our homes in Lambeth and Southwark.
Southwark's reserves have been all but spent. If the Government's rate-capping limits are to be abided by, and expenditure is held down to last year's level in cash terms, there will be draconian effects on the people at the bottom end of the social scale, who are desperately in need of more services. Through their elected representatives they should be allowed to decide what level of services should be provided. The Department of the Environment has to bear the consequences of the fact that people will have worse housing, social services and other public services next year because of the Government's policies than they would have done if more money had been raised.


There is one way in which Southwark could have increased its income, but one cannot suddenly increase the collection of rate arrears. appalling though they are, in a matter of months. A relaxation to take account of that would have been welcome.
There is no adequate compensation for the abolition of the GLC. We shall find that, even with the tightest budgetary control—the budget may not be in the hands of the Labour party after May — there will be great difficulty in doing anything like retain the key essential services, let alone the non-statutory ones, that I hope that the Minister, when she was in local government, would have fought to defend.
If we had gone for re-determination a little earlier in Southwark, we might have done a little better. I have no doubt that our local authority could have managed the books much better as well. It does not change the principle of the debate, however, that rate capping, having been wrong in logic from the beginning, is more harmful in practice as time goes on. It is more harmful in the second year than it was in the first. After this year I hope that Ministers will be persuaded, even if they were not last year, that this should be the final year in which the Government seek to use the powers they gave themselves in the rates legislation and will realise that it is folly to take away from local representatives the power to decide the level of services that their people want and to which they are entitled.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to hear the opening speeches. I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the debate because this issue affects my constituents significantly.
This time last year in the equivalent debate my lips were sealed in that I was one Bench nearer the front than I am now. One of the advantages of having moved backwards geographically is being able to move forward to take part in this debate.
The embarrassment to which I have to admit is occasioned by the fact that the borough council, two thirds of whose area I represent, is even in the list of rate-limited authorities. Swindon is not an area of inner-city deprivation, as are some of the other listed authorities. Indeed, I am grateful to the local government information unit for its production of facts and figures which show that many of the authorities under discussion today have those problems.
Why then should Thamesdown be listed among those authorities affected? I do not wish to give the impression to the House that unemployment in Swindon is any less a problem for those affected by it than it is in other parts of the country. If a person is unemployed, he is unemployed. If he has bad housing conditions, he has bad housing conditions, and naturally we all wish to see something done about it. The authority, part of which I represent, and similarly Basildon, cannot be compared in any reasonable way with those other affected authorities in the list, so why Thamesdown? Why is Thamesdown the highest rated authority in the country? To answer that question, it is necessary to go back quite a long time and I shall do so.
Swindon borough council, as it was before reorganisation 12 years ago, was directed by a town clerk, David Murray John, who had the foresight to recognise that a town based upon a single industry, the railways, could not

for ever survive in that form and that if the inevitable decline in the railway industry, which he foresaw as long ago as 1950, was to be coped with by the local community, it would be necessary to take major steps to bring in alternatives for job creation.
Thus it was that Swindon borough council, without the help of Government money, undertook the role of a development agency. A number of generations of new industry have been brought to the town—in the earliest period, Pressed Steel Fisher, now an Austin Rover body pressing plant, then at a later stage Plessey and Garrards, producing well over 10,000 jobs.
Gradually the industrial nature of the town changed. Thus in recent years Swindon has developed a reputation as a high-tech town. The M4 is known as the silicon valley, the corridor of high tech which stretches from London to south Wales, and Swindon has been a part of that. The new companies have come in—National Semi conductor, Intel, Logica and so on—at the same time as the head offices of companies moving out of London.
It is worth reflecting why so many companies have moved their head offices from London to Swindon. The reason is very simple. They were enabled many years ago to move to an area where rates were much lower—but not so now. Burmah Oil, Anchor Food, Hambro Life—now Allied Dunbar—and other major companies have moved into the borough, which is now called Thamesdown. They were grateful at the time to do so, but now they begin to question the wisdom of what they have done.
The era of Swindon as a development agency can now be put in the past. Many hon. Members will be aware that firms are now seriously considering moving to Swindon even though there is no Government assistance for them to do so. Many large companies will consider moving to an assisted area in south Wales or in the north-east because they know that they will get substantial help from Government to do so. However, they also look at Swindon because it is an attractive area in terms of its geographical location and excellent communications and because there is a wide variety of private sector housing available in and round the town. They look at it and say, "Yes, Swindon is an attractive place to consider moving to."
I contend that the time has now gone when Thamesdown borough council could justify the enormous levels of expenditure on development. No longer is it necessary for Thamesdown borough council to think of itself as a development agency without benefit of Government help. The time has come when the momentum for change and growth is self-induced. There is, therefore, no reason for Thamesdown to continue such high expenditure. There are now so many jobs in new companies that public expenditure at the level which brought Thamesdown within the scope of this order is no longer necessary.

Mr. Dobson: Are there not now more people unemployed in Swindon, when the hon. Gentleman says the spending should stop, than there were when the spending was commenced?

Mr. Coombs: The hon. Gentleman has a point. but he is wrong. I am saying not that the expenditure should cease, but that it should come from a different quarter. I am suggesting that there is now such a momentum of private enterprise capital coming into the town as to make


it unnecessary for Thamesdown borough council to continue with its high spending policies. I find it embarrassing to have to try to explain to other hon. Members why it should be necessary, given that Swindon is a rapidly expanding area with private enterprise companies queuing up to come to the town, for the local authority to go on hammering the ratepayers as it does.

Mr. Straw: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is making a rather more thoughtful speech than some that we have heard from the Government Benches. But why is he criticising Thamesdown so much for increasing its expenditure when it has increased by only 104 per cent. since 1979 while central Government spending has risen by 125 per cent.? On any basis Thamesdown has not been a high spender.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's helpful and thoughtful intervention. I would not for a moment want to justify high central Government expenditure, any more than I can possibly justify high local government expenditure. My view is that public expenditure has increased, is increasing and ought generally to be reduced. I hope that I have established that there is a momentum in Swindon that should be allowed to continue without further intervention.
I wish to examine a few other aspects of the activities of the local council. The council regards other areas of expenditure under only one heading: is it desirable? Almost invariably the majority decision of the council is yes. If it moves, it is worth spending money on it; if it does not move, it is still worth spending money on it. At a time of high financial stringency it simply will not wash to spend money upon anything. The ratepayers are not very happy about it.
It is unfortunate that the council has approved the expenditure at £15 million on a major new leisure centre, but has told those who want to improve their homes by means of non-mandatory grants that there is no money in the kitty. That is the wrong order of priorities. I should dearly love the council to change its policy. There must surely be room for manoeuvre within a budget of about £15 million. However, Thamesdown district council's propaganda might lead one to think that there is no room for manoeuvre.
Before the borough was rate limited last year it mounted a propaganda campaign of considerable proportions. There is another Bill before the House that deals with political propaganda campaigns. However, this particular propaganda campaign was accompanied by a point blank refusal to discuss with central Government whether Thamesdown was properly rate-limited. Time and again I asked the controlling Labour group to talk to the Government about it, but it refused to do so. Time and again my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expressed his willingness to meet the local authority, but it refused to do so. There was a deafening silence about negotiations for an increase in the level of expenditure. A propaganda campaign was waged instead. Unremitting hostility was shown not only towards the Government but even towards the potential recipients of money that it was claimed would no longer be available. Voluntary bodies were told that there could be no guarantee that funds would continue to be made available after the local authority had been rate-capped.
I have received many letters from voluntary bodies in which they said that this could not be right, that surely the Government were not saying that their activities must be brought to a halt. The Government are saying nothing of the kind. They are merely saying that the borough's overall level of expenditure should be restrained. However, the borough chose to put fear into the hearts of those who were trying their best, on a voluntary basis, to do a good job in very difficult circumstances. The borough was rate-limited, but not one voluntary body suffered in the least.
It is interesting that this year there has been no propaganda campaign by the local authority. Its bluff was called and its cover was blown. Its empty threats of disaster were shown to be nonsense. We have heard no such threats this year. Indeed, in the certain knowledge that the House will approve the order, the borough has announced that a bonanza of new money will be made available to the voluntary bodies. I welcome that announcement because they will be worthy recipients of this money.
Is it not curious, however that a double-edged sword should be used by this borough? It is frightening people, but at the same time it is giving them more money. It is threatening them with no future but at the same time it is pouring money into their pockets, which will help to ensure their future. And the threats continue. I was present last Friday at the opening of a new bus service for the disabled. It is to be funded by urban aid money, which I welcome. Every local authority knows when it enters into an urban aid project that central Government money is not available on an open-ended basis. Therefore it is quite wrong, cruel and hypocritical for the borough to tell those people that it has no idea where the money will come from when the central Government grant ends. That should be rammed down the throats of those who are prepared to act in so intolerable and cruel a way.
What will be the effect of rate limitation upon the ratepayers of Thamesdown? A rate of 54·68p in the pound means that they will enjoy a cut of about 4·per cent. in the borough rate. That has to be set against the mammoth rise of 26 per cent. that is to be imposed by the county council. At a time of financial stringency, the Lib-Lab alliance in Wiltshire has gone ahead with major new spending plans. There is no shortage of money—

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Coombs: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence. We are told that there is no shortage of money, but a 26 per cent. rate increase has been imposed by the county council. This is said to be the right way to go about things. At a time of financial stringency there is to be additional expenditure of £2 million.

Mr. Roberts: Does the rate increase have nothing to do with the reduction in the county council's rate support grant?

Mr. Coombs: I am amazed that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) can be so naive. Of course it has. That is why I said that this is happening at a time of financial stringency. One would have expected a rational and sensible county council to control the level of expenditure, not to go in for excessive new expenditure.


—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might listen to the answer when he has asked a question. He might even learn something, although I doubt it. I am already receiving letters of complaint from industry. It recognises the effect that this agglomerated rates increase will have, and it is only a matter of time before domestic ratepayers join in the chorus of complaint.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted in an answer to me that the effect of rates on the total costs of United Kingdom commercial and industrial companies is less than 1 per cent.?

Mr. Coombs: I am very happy to do so. However, a rates bill of nearly £1 million a year, although it may be peanuts to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), represents a considerable burden for large companies in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman smiles, but he does not have to pay those bills. Those who do are extremely unhappy about it. A 26 per cent. rates increase that may be reduced to a 22 per cent. rates increase will be seriously regarded. He should not smile or make light of it for one moment.

Mr. Holland: As he is so fluent and articulate, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the effect of corporation tax on companies? He has a point: smaller firms generally pay higher taxes. However, it is not simply a question of rates, which they pay proportionately; it is also a question of corporation tax. Because of tax rebates, big business pays next to no corporation tax. The fiscal crisis comes from that, not from the imposition of rates on small firms.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made a fair point. I am delighted to be a supporter of a Government who are progressively reducing the level of corporation tax. I hope that that process will continue throughout the lifetime of this Parliament.
I regret that rate limitation is needed. I wish that these councils recognised the need for self-control. It is sad that central Government should have to impose control upon them, sometimes arbitrarily.
It seems unlikely that any such se lf-control will be manifested by any of the authorities we are discussing. The extreme Left is running things in most, if not all, of those authorities. Ordinary people in Swindon say to me, "If you think that Liverpool is bad, wait until you see what will happen to the Labour party in Swindon in the next few years." I appeal to the Government not to be deflected from their course. If we want to see the Hattons, the Knights and the Grants rampant, the way to go about it is to vote against this order. That is a terrifying thought, not only to hon. Members on the Government side but to most Opposition Members who are as frightened of their friends as we are. I hope that the House will support and confirm this order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Speaker earlier made an appeal for brief speeches. I hope that that appeal will not be ignored.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am the first speaker in this debate representing a

metropolitan district outside London that has been rate-capped as a result of this order. For the first time, the Liverpool metropolitan district has been selected in this order for rate capping.
Everybody is conversant with the social problems that cause anxiety in Liverpool. Deprivation is well known, and umpteen social surveys over the year have registered the fact that Liverpool is one of the most deprived cities, not only in Britain but in Europe.
Even the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) recognised that when he visited the city in 1981. When he addressed the Conservative party conference that year, he was forced to the conclusion that problems such as those that exist in inner-city Liverpool could be addressed only by large increases in public expenditure. Even the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), now no longer on the Front Bench, and his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), when they visited Liverpool in June 1984, made it quite clear that they could confirm that housing conditions there were among the worst that they had seen anywhere.
However, Liverpool is to be rate-capped. Rate capping for Liverpool is inequitable and anomalous. The decision to rate-cap Liverpool is based on the decision of the city council on 14 June 1985 to raise its expenditure level: to £265 million. That was the so-called illegal budget. As everybody knows, and quite irrespective of the political arguments that have flowed over this problem in Liverpool, on 29 November 1985, the budget was levelled at £222 million. This was done by capitalising the maintenance and repair account, and by the use of special funds. If Liverpool had set its expenditure level of £222 million in June 1985, it would not have been rate-capped. I ask the Minister to confirm that. It is being rate-capped on a quiteb artificial figure.
To rate-cap Liverpool is totally unreasonable. For the next financial year, Liverpool's expenditure has been determined at £274·6 million. That is only 5·1 per cent. above the grant-related expenditure level decided by the Government. It is the lowest figure above GRE of any of the authorities mentioned in this order. The next lowest is Islington which is 12£5 per cent. above its GRE and a number of authorities that appear in this order are 59 per cent. above their GRE. I say again that it is quite unreasonable to rate-cap Liverpool when it is only 5·1 per cent. above GRE.
When the Minister is replying, perhaps she will address herself to the comments of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. On 25 July 1985, he said:
For authorities not previously selected, I am proposing the same criteria as I used this year: I am selecting authorities whose budgets this year are more than 20 per cent. above grant-related expenditure and more than 4 per cent. above target." —[Official Report, 25 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 1316.]
As I have said, Liverpool is only 5·1 per cent. above its GRE. I want to look at the implications for Liverpool of the abolition out of political vindictiveness of Merseyside county council. Taking into account the appropriate share of this year's county precept, the rate limits for the new joint boards allow a precept increase of over 50 per cent, but the rate limit covering the services of Merseyside county council that are transferred to Liverpool, is to be a mere 7 per cent. What is sauce for the goose should surely be sauce for the gander, but then, of course, the Government do not like Liverpool. The expenditure of the


joint board is much in excess of the GRE, far more than in the case of the city of Liverpool. That is another example of inequitable treatment.
The Government are fond of saying that they want to keep the rates down. One might feel that they had an argument if, after all these exercises that we have gone through, the rates were being kept down. But in Liverpool the rate limit, which has been set at 232·09p in the pound, is an 18 per cent. increase next year for the ratepayers of the city, and indeed for the business people that hon. Members on the Government side seem to be so worried about. It means an 18 per cent. increase even to reach the limit decided by the Government. [Interruption.] The ratepayers in Liverpool would hardly think it generous, but they are beginning to understand why we have this problem. That reason was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who is the shadow spokesman on these matters. He pointed to the reduction in rate support grant from 61 per cent. of revenue to 47 per cent. of revenue this year. That is the real reason why we are having rate increases.
Liverpool city council will be allowed to spend £274·6 million next year, but that will not meet the needs of the people of Liverpool. That does not take into account the expenditure that will be necessary to sustain the services which the Merseyside county council has provided over the past 10 or more years. The city's capital programme has been determined provisionally, and it allows for £24 million for county services with an extra £2 million for grants to arts bodies, to voluntary organisations and to property such as the Croxteth hall and country park. These sums will be inadequate even to deal with the statutory obligations that are to be transferred to Liverpool city council as a result of the political vindictiveness that has led to the abolition of the Merseyside county council.
The Tories who send Members to this place to represent Merseyside districts, which will feel the pinch when services are lost with the abolition of the Merseyside county council, should ask themselves why. It is no use arguing that the Liverpool city council should become responsible for assisting the philharmonic hall, the philharmonic orchestra, Liverpool ice rink, Croxteth hall, the Liverpool playhouse, the Empire theatre and Liverpool airport and provide funds to assist umpteen voluntary organisations, and argue at the same time that the Government's legislation makes any extra resources available to those who live in the great city of Liverpool.
Transitional arrangements for voluntary organisations allow for central Government funding of £375,000. However, if Liverpool is to pick up that sum for that purpose, it will have to find an additional £455,000. Voluntary organisations are hammering on the door of the city council, and quite rightly because they often supplement Merseyside's social services. They do marvellous work for those who live in the city. However, they cannot expect the council to be able to provide the funds that have been removed from the city as a result of the Government's diktat.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned some of the services that Liverpool runs, including an ice rink. Why does he expect ratepayers and taxpayers in all the other counties, shires

and districts of Britain to finance Liverpool's ice rink? Is it not about time that Liverpool started to contribute to our economy instead of drawing away from it?

Mr. Wareing: The Merseyside county council, whether under Tory rule or Labour rule, has always provided funds for the Liverpool ice rink. I shall explain why ratepayers and taxpayers in other areas should make a contribution. The hon. Gentleman may even go to church and he might even regard himself as a Christian. He may have heard the adage "Am I my brother's keeper?" The closure of the ice rink would do nothing to deter a rising level of youth delinquency that arises from unemployment in the area. Scores of young people benefit from the ice rink and its closure would have considerable social implications in areas of desperately high unemployment on Merseyside. The consequences would be even more unfortunate than the closing of the philharmonic hall.

Mr. Fallon: rose——

Mr. Wareing: I do not want to enter into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fallon: I understand that the closure of the ice rink might have the consequences that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. What I do not understand is why Darlington ratepayers and taxpayers should help finance Liverpool's ice rink. What is Liverpool doing for Darlington?

Mr. Wareing: Those of us who believe in the redistribution of income and progressive taxation understand that the rich and richer than average will by those means help to provide for those who are weaker and poorer. I am sure that there are those in Darlington who are being subsidised by the tax policy of previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is advancing an absurd argument.
Liverpool city council is being asked to provide moneys for services which have been transferred to it as a result of the abolition of Merseyside county council. It even has to face debt charges on museums and art galleries, which will go to an unelected quango in a similar way to the art galleries and museums of metropolitan London. It is wrong that the city council should have to pick up that bill.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have many constituents who have businesses in Liverpool and who are therefore affected by Liverpool's rate although they do not have a vote in the area and do not have any say in its rating policy. He is aware that they do not have a business vote in Liverpool.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want them to have two votes? Is his policy one person, two votes?

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is missing the point. He should know that I am not to be put off by such silly talk. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) knows what I am talking about. Many of my constituents pay rates on business premises in Liverpool and they do not have a vote in the areas in which their businesses are situated. He is arguing that the rate-capped sum which has beer set for Liverpool will lead to a rate increase of 18 per cent. and that that will not be a sufficient increase. What des he think the increase would be instead of 18 per cent. if a limit had not been imposed?

Mr. Wareing: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that the rate support grant should never have been slashed in the first place. I have a feeling that his constituents use the Liverpool philharmonic hall and the playhouse and Empire theatre to a disproportionate extent. They are the people who use the facilities that are now to be paid for almost entirely by the Liverpool ratepayers. Those who live in Southport and the Wirral benefit disproportionately from certain services that are provided in Liverpool, and they are now to be brought to an end as a result of the Government's policy.
The determination of target expenditure is based upon the 1981–82 budget, and there have been many significant changes beyond the council's control since then. For example, the council has no control over its income. It has suffered losses in rent income because of the demolition of houses and the evacuation of families.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the effect of rate capping on Liverpool will be a shortfall of about £37 million and a loss of 800 jobs in an area where unemployment stands at 22 per cent.? It will lead to an abandonment of the housing scheme which was inherited from the previous Liberal administration, in the implementation of which not one brick was laid for the building of a council house.

Mr. Wareing: I recall that it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) who, as chairman of the Liberal-controlled housing committee in Liverpool for so many years, stopped council house building and boarded up 5,000 houses, which caused a loss of revenue to the city.
If the measure is passed, Liverpool city council will have seriously to review its housing programme. That programme provides homes for some of the 20,000 people with unmet housing needs in Liverpool and jobs for building workers in the city.
The subsidy arrangements for 1983–84 also meant that the loss of subsidy effectively offset any reductions in marginal expenditure. Therefore, the whole of the lost rent income served to increase net expenditure.
It must be remembered that Liverpool has traditionally been a regional provider of residential services through its social services department. Because of the fall in demand from outlying areas and other parts of the north-west for accommodation for children and young people, other local authorities reducing their expenditure do so at Liverpool's expense. That affects Liverpool's income.
The economic situation in Liverpool, largely caused by the Government's unholy monetarist policies, has led to an increase in free school meals. More and more families impoverished by the Government's economic policies are now dependent upon free school meals. That is additional expenditure for the Liverpool city council.
Governments over the past 10 years have determined that new law courts should be built in the city of Liverpool. Now that the new buildings are in use, St. George's hall, which was the traditional site of the Crown courts in the city, is now a financial burden on the city as it lacks Government assistance. St. George's hall is now closed, as the philharmonic hall and many other buildings may well be closed in the near future as a result of Government policy.
The loss of revenue to the city of Liverpool through the closure of St. George's hall in 1984–85 was £325,000. The

compensating savings were less than £200,000. That meant a net loss for the city of Liverpool of more than £120,000.
There has been a reduction in the income from Manpower Services Commission agency courses at colleges of further education. That has also affected Liverpool city council's income. There have also been expenditure increases which were beyond Liverpool council's control.
For example, Liverpool city council is now responsible for providing 10 per cent. of the share of housing benefits. Incidentally, I noticed that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is no longer in the Chamber, actually thinks that people who are on housing benefits ipso facto do not pay taxes. Of course they do, although the hon. Gentleman probably has not the slightest notion of that. He probably owns more than one house and I am sure he has no need of housing benefit.
It has been necessary in Liverpool to increase the number of maintenance grants and grants for clothing and footwear to pupils as a result of the deprivation caused by the Government's policies. Additional expenditure will have to be found, which again is beyond the city council's control, for the maintenance of the magistrates courts.
Since 1981, despite all these problems and the extra expenditure needed, the rate support grant lost to Liverpool has been £245 million. When the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) worries about his ratepayers, he should direct his concern at his Government's Front Bench. The Government are responsible for the £245 million which the city of Liverpool has lost since 1981. That sum is the equivalent of a rate rise of about 130p in the pound.
The Government are apparently unwilling to meet the needs of the people of Liverpool. The Government have made promise after promise and exhortation after exhortation to the Liverpool city council but they have broken their promises.
The Government are fond of accusing the Liverpool city council of being irresponsible, but I remind them of a meeting that I attended—the first meeting between the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford and the Liverpool city councillors. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would use his best endeavours to help the housing situation in Liverpool. I also read the right hon. Gentleman's letter of 29 June 1984 to the leader of the Liverpool city council, Councillor John Hamilton, in which he made a similar reference. However, when the housing investment programme was settled for 1985–86, it was settled at £31·5 million, which was £6·5 million less than before the former Secretary of State made his promise in 1984–85.
I ask the Government to move away from their studied indifference to the needs of the people of Liverpool. If they cannot, at this late hour, withdraw the statutory instrument or table an interim order, then, for goodness' sake, they should get together with the elected representatives of the city of Liverpool — while there still are elected representatives of the city of Liverpool—and work out a sensible housing investment programme. The Government should also look at the urban programme.
I have no great hope that the Government will do that, as they have been spending their time avoiding meetings. I laughed a little wrily when I heard the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) talking about the Secretary of


State offering to go to Swindon to talk to the Swindon councillors. That may be marvellous, but the Liverpool city councillors have been trying to get the Secretary of State's officials to come together to discuss the issue.
When the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replies to the debate, I hope that she will answer some of the questions that have been asked in connection with the city of Liverpool. I hope that the answers will be motivated by something more than political vindictiveness which I believe has been meted out deliberately to Liverpool city council as a lesson to the rest of the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) commenced his speech, I appealed for brevity. I am sorry to have to repeat that appeal at the end of his speech.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I know that my constituents and ratepayers will welcome the order and will be particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government did not accede to the appeal from the leadership of Southwark council to increase the rate limitation.
The order marks a further step along the line to control the wanton and wasteful expenditure of Southwark council and the general mismanagement of so many of its services.
Southwark council receives payment of rates from some 30 per cent. of its residents. The remaining 70 per cent. are on some form of rate rebate. That means that they are not in any sense committed to the expenditure considerations of that council. Indeed, two thirds of the total rate bill is met by commercial, industrial and other rates and not by the domestic ratepayer.
There is something of a note of hypocrisy in Opposition suggestions that local government is autonomous, responsible and accountable. In my borough there is no link between those who pay the bills and those who spend the money. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) brought that point out when he talked of the people who pay rates but who do not have an opportunity to say how they are spent.

Ms. Harriet Harman: rose——

Mr. Bowden: I give way to my constituent.

Ms. Harman: Is it not a condemnation of the Government's policy that the huge increase in unemployment in Southwark has meant a huge increase in the number of people who cannot pay their rates? Should not the hon. Gentleman feel ashamed of that, rather than add insult to injury by denying such people the right to vote while casting them into unemployment?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but where businesses have to pay high rates they move out. In one of the main streets of my constituency the number of "For Sale" boards and small businesses closing show that they are being driven out by high rates.

Mr. Allan Roberts: That is not true.

Mr. Bowden: It is true. I believe that I am better informed than the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that high interest rates are a greater burden on small businesses than high rates?

Mr. Bowden: They should not be compared. They are two separate burdens. One can be controlled by the local authority and this measure attempts to control it.
It is worth looking at the history of rate capping. It has been a great benefit to those of my constituents who pay rates. They have seen their rate bill decrease by about 25 per cent. over the past year—the borough rate by 11 per cent. and the GLC and ILEA precept by a further 14 per cent. That has been a great benefit to them and they welcome this further step in that direction.
It is instructive to compare what happens in a borough such as Southwark, which has a great deal of inner-city deprivation but also one or two desirable residential parts, with a borough such as Wandsworth which is not so far away. Wandsworth has a demography similar to that of Southwark. There is a tale of two boroughs which bears careful examination.
Both boroughs started from a similar base when they were both Labour-controlled in 1977. Southwark had a rate of 66p and Wandsworth a rate of 68p. Wandsworth was more highly rated than Southwark in 1977. The story began to change when a Conservative administration was elected in Wandsworth. I see that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has moved to the Front Bench. Ambition knows no end.
There has been an instructive development over the careful years of good housekeeping by a Conservative administration in Wandsworth. The two boroughs started at roughly the same level but in 1984–85 Southwark's rate was 260p in the pound and Wandworth's was 137p in the pound. Wandsworth started higher but its rates are now only just over half Southwark's. The administrations of Wandsworth, Lambeth and Southwark should be carefully compared to see what can be done in similar areas.
We can also compare the management of financial affairs. Wandsworth has rent arrears. The latest figure that I have heard quoted was about £3 million. Southwark's rate arrears amount to £23 million. There is some disgraceful mismanagement if rent arrears at that level are allowed to accrue.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a high proportion of the rent arrears in boroughs such as Southwark and Lambeth are due to the late payment of housing benefit by the DHSS? Is he aware of what those delays are? The boroughs have protested time and time again that they could not possibly take over those payments from the DHSS. That is one reason for the delay.

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a good point, but I do not see that life is so different in Southwark and Lambeth, which are only three or four miles away from Wandsworth.

Mr. Holland: It is because DHSS offices in areas of especially high unemployment are under heavy pressure. The Secretary of State is laughing, but at least junior Ministers take the matter seriously.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman may have a point but it does not explain the difference between £3 million and £23 million. A difference of that order cannot be the result of the DHSS offices' slowness.
We should also compare the way in which properties are managed. A loss of income results from empty


properties. I believe the current figure in Southwark is about £4,000, whereas in Wandsworth it is infinitely less, at £1,000. Better management and organisation are required to ensure that available resources are properly used.
The difference in expenditure is reflected when it is put on a per capita basis. The cost of removing refuse in Southwark by its direct labour force is about £21·16 per head. That should be compared with Wandsworth where it is about £8·71 per head—about one third of the cost. There is more satisfaction about refuse collections in Wandsworth than there is in Southwark.
The same applies to expenditure on highways. In Southwark £36·09 per head is spent, whereas in Wandsworth it is £15 per head. There is something drastically wrong when there is such a difference in the figures. That has come about since 1978. Southwark has raced ahead and Wandsworth has reined in its expenditure.
That suggests that there is an opportunity for improvement. Services can be improved and costs cut at the same time. There is not necessarily a contradiction between those two principles. Those responsible for raising the rates and spending the money should address themselves to how that can best be done to achieve cost-effective services and value for money.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted a law lecturer at Southampton university. I always listen with great interest when a law lecturer is quoted. was struck by the words quoted:
Rate capping is a short-term expedient".
That is a fair judgment. It is an effective expedient, but only in the short term. In the long term, we must find a way to make local government more accountable, more responsive to those who pay for the services which they have a duty to provide and more cost conscious, and we must ensure that they obtain value for money.
Although rate capping is not the perfect answer, it is a workable expedient for the ratepayers of my constituency and other parts of London which are subject to the order. I welcome the order, an improvement in the rating system and the reforms adumbrated in the Green Paper. I give the order my warm support.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Thank you for calling me at such an early stage in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been here almost throughout the debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Boden). I wish to say something about what the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) said. They were in favour of rate capping. I listened carefully and listed the reasons that they gave, which were that Basildon council had run a welfare rights campaign and is good at publicity. The Government did not mind councils spending money on publicity, until they got good at it, because they have always spent money on publicity. It has increased the number of jobs in the area, it has campaigned against the two Tory MPs, it wins elections, it wants the best possible boundaries to enable Labour to win seats in the future, it will be re-elected, and it has closed the swimming pool. That is not a saving, so it must be a cut. It has planted a lot of trees and prudently has a large amount of reserves. That seems to be the basis of the justification for rate-capping Basildon. I wish to deal with all the other rate-capped authorities, the order and the way it operates.
We have heard that Liverpool has been rate-capped. Last year, Liverpool would not put the rates up and that put it into an illegal situation. The Government urged Liverpool to put the rates up, Stonefrost urged Liverpool to put the rates up, as did the Minister who will reply to the debate. Now the Government are forcing Liverpool to cut jobs and services or attain a legal budget The Government will not allow Liverpool to put the rates up more than a certain amount because Liverpool is being rate-capped. How did rate capping come to be, and what is it all about?
Rate capping is about cutting or attempting to cut public expenditure. It has an amazing history of maladministration. When the Government came to power they said that they would cut public expenditure and also intended to cut local authority public expenditure rather than central Government expenditure. The Government introduced a block grant system but that did not work. The Government introduced a system of targets and penalties whereby, if a council exceeded a target or spent more than Government wanted it to spend, or had rate increases more than the Government intended, they would penalise the council by taking grant from it. If the council put up the rates to compensate for the central Government grant being taken off, the Government would penalise that council even more by taking more grant from them.
That happened to the extent that some councils went out of grant—some of the London boroughs and the GLC did not receive grant. The Government had therefore lost their power in the legislation over the local authorities and could not dictate to them, so they introduced the idea of rate capping. Rate capping is direct central control of the day-to-day affairs of local authorities. It is an absolute disgrace that we are having this debate. Debates about Liverpool, Basildon or other local authority budgets should be taking place in the local authority's council chambers between the rival political groups on those councils. They would be determining what the local ballot box has traditionally determined, but the Bill destroys local democracy.
Until this Government, local elections were about one person, one vote, not one business person, two votes. One went to the bollot box to vote on the level of services in relation to levels of local taxation. Traditionally, in Conservative areas with Conservative-run councils, one got lower rates but poorer services. In areas run by Labour, one received better services and higher rates. However, if one did not agree with what the council did, one voted against it through the bollot box. That is what local elections were about, but they are not about anything now. The Government, this Chamber and the Whitehall computer are now saying what the balance should be between services and rate levels. In the process they have destroyed the traditional relationship between local and central Government.
Central Government has a role to play in determining the parameters in which local government functions. Government must lay down duties, responsibilities and statutory conditions on local government. Traditionally, the relationship was based on central Government putting duties and responsibilities on local authorities, determining what the central contribution should be for those facilities and fulfilling those duties. Freedom and democracy were shown by the fact that local government was free to do more and to provide better services to initiate and pioneer.


Many local authorities were pioneers. They pioneered the manufacture of gas built large airports which made profits for the local community and established the police force. All these were achieved in advance of central Government and always with freedom, democracy and right of manoeuvre. The next Labour Government will restore that traditional relationship.
The devastating consequences of the order and the rate capping are not felt just in the rate-capped areas. I was on the Committee on the Bill which introduced rate capping; the Conservatives could only quote one leader of a Conservative council who supported the legislation. The Government could quote many leaders of Conservative minority groups in Labour councils who supported rate capping. The one Tory leader who was quoted was Ron Watson, the leader of Sefton council.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My hon. Friend is making a good point and I am grateful to him for giving way. Does he not agree that the average rate rise this year will run at 18 per cent. Oxfordshire will have a rise of 27·9 percent., Bedfordshire 33 percent. and Buckinghamshire 30 per cent.? These councils are not the wicked Socialist councils like Newcastle upon Tyne which the Prime Minister has continued to prattle on about. These are Tory shires and they are not going to forget this Government for what they have done to them.

Mr. Roberts: I agree with that. Sefton is a metropolitan district which used to pride itself on low rates and poor services. The council has cut services to the bone and has done everything the Government wanted, but the leader of that council was the one quoted by Ministers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must confine ourselves to the geographical areas covered by the order.

Mr. Roberts: I am doing that, and I am quoting the justification of the Government, in their rate-capping legislation, for rate-capping Liverpool and the other local authorities. The Government quoted the leader of Sefton council on the assumption that, if one rate-capped Liverpool and the others, the consequence of dealing with the so-called overspenders was that there would be money available to redistribute to the so-called underspenders. Suddenly the underspenders have found that that is not true. In the next financial year Sefton faces a 26 to 30 per cent. rate increase as a result of massive cuts in rate support grant not only to itself——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may not know the area extremely well, but I think Sefton district council is separate from Liverpool district council. Will the hon. Gentleman discuss that?

Mr. Roberts: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are being most unfair.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have your guidance. I believe that the area of Sefton was mentioned in an intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir. I. Percival) during my speech. There are implications for those who live outside a rate-capped area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The fact that perhaps the occupant of the Chair was not so conscientious in his responsibilities as he might have been during the hon.

Gentleman's speech is no justification for him now being lax. "Erskine May" clearly states on page 619 that when a statutory instrument is confined
to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order.

Mr. Roberts: I am speaking about the geographical areas and about the implications for those areas. The consequences are that there is no money because of the rate-capping of Liverpool and the other local authorities. That is a consequence of what is happening in the geographical area. Therefore, other local authorities are suffering as a result. That theme has permeated the whole of the debate. Why it should be suddenly different when I am speaking I do not know.
I state quite clearly that one of the justifications for rate-capping in these geographical areas was that if the Government dealt with the overspenders there would be money left for the underspenders. That is not true. Rate-capping those areas has not saved any money or provided any money for the so-called underspenders; otherwise Sefton would not be facing a 26 to 30 per cent. rate increase.

Sir Ian Percival: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that at least 44·88p on 14 per cent. of the 25 per cent. which is threatened, is the precept of the Merseyside passenger transport authority, over which we in Sefton have no control, and which would have been 55p, another 7 per cent., if the Government had not curbed it the week before last?

Mr. Roberts: Besides arguing that rate-capping would help so-called underspenders, it was argued that abolition would help them. The leader of Sefton council——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we are still on Sefton, we had better move on. I hope that the House will not persist in ignoring my remarks. The position is clear: we debate what is in the order, and Sefton is not mentioned.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am serious about the point of order. Throughout the debate, including the opening speeches of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), reference has been made to the consequences of abolition and precepting on authorities. They are tied up with grant-related expenditures and rate-capping assessments. The consequences of rate capping in Liverpool cannot be separated from the abolition of Merseyside county council and the precepts, because——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is basically the same as the one with which I have already dealt. The position is absolutely clear. Page 619 of "Erskine May" states:
Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order.
Sefton is not referred to in the instrument, and I hope that we have heard the last of Sefton during the debate. The hon. Gentleman will kindly confine himself to the areas specifically mentioned in the statutory instrument.

Mr. Roberts: Liverpool is on Merseyside, and I shall refer to Merseyside county council, and the consequences for Liverpool, which are the same as for the other districts in the area.
As a result of the abolition of Merseyside county council, which has led to the rate capping of Liverpool, the three precepts for all three joint authorities—the


police, fire and passenger transport authorities —aggregate to 77p. That is 4p more than the 73p which the county council levied for all its services in 1985–86, which included highways, trading standards, waste disposal and the arts, most of which must now be provided by district councils, and will be included in the rates in 1986–87.
Therefore, all the district councils of Merseyside, especially Liverpool, must find both a precept, which the Government have determined because the passenger transport authority and the other joint bodies are rate-capped as well as Liverpool, and money in the rates for the other services that are being handed to them as a result of abolition. The Merseyside authorities are suffering not only from a cut in rate support grant, but from an increased precept from the non-elected passenger transport authority and the other joint bodies. The Government, not those bodies, decided on the precept because those bodies, the city of Liverpool, and other local authorities, are rate-capped.
If one studies how the rate-capped local authorities have been selected, one sees how arbitrary the selection procedure has been. That is no accident because the councils are all Labour-controlled. It is surprising that none is Conservative-controlled. The authorities have been chosen for spending above GREAs and targets, and the criteria used are unfair and nonsense. GREAs are intended to be a way of distributing grant, rather than a normative spending level. The Government made that clear when GREAs were introduced in 1981, and it was confirmed by the Department of the Environment to the Audit Commission in 1984 and the National Audit Office in 1985.
As GREAs are not the instrument through which to determine rate levels and rate-capping, why are they being used now, instead of other measures, to justify rate-capping those authorities? The reason is that, if GREAs are used, Labour-controlled areas fall into the penalty box. Spending targets for individual authorities have been completely discredited. The Government have been forced to abandon such targets for 1986–87 in both England and Wales, yet they continue to use them for this purpose.
The idea that the voluntary sector is not suffering as a result of the rate-capping proposals is absolute nonsense. The abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC means that the rate-capped authorities and others must pick up the bill for funding voluntary organisations—the arts and non-arts—which were previously funded by county councils. The Liverpool council for voluntary services has identified 90 organisations which are in immediate danger of closure. The position is now criticial. With fewer than six weeks to go, the council for voluntary services writes:
We are seeking urgent support. Redundancy notices are now being issued and schemes being closed down. If swift action is not taken, yet again Merseyside will suffer substantial job losses and cuts in services.
The voluntary sector and local authority services are suffering, and rates continue to increase. The Government are destroying local government democracy and the reason for local elections. They are trying to suggest that they will solve the problems of rate-capped authorities by a Green Paper on the poll tax, which they intend to implement over four Parliaments, which means that it will probably never be implemented.

Mr. Loyden: I wish to stress my hon. Friend's point about voluntary organisations. I was always of the opinion, which is now being proved wrong, that the Tory

party was in favour of voluntary organisations. At present voluntary organisations in Liverpool will stop functioning because of the abolition of the Merseyside county council. The Secretary of State is asking them to approach the city council, which is rate-capped and has a shortfall in its budget of £37 million.

Mr. Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. When the Government announced the rate support grant settlement, they said to some local authorities, in anticipation of rate-capping other authorities, that certain amounts of grant would be clawed back from overspending authorities. Many local authorities, in anticipation of that, have invented a new phenomenon called flowback. They are planning deficit budgets, as Liverpool did last year with its illegal budget, on the assumption that, because of the rate-capping orders, money which was to be given to local authorities will be taken from them and redistributed to underspending authorities.
One such local authority next to Liverpool. which I cannot mention, is expecting £1·9 million flowback from rate-capped authorities. It is contemplating a deficit budget in anticipation of receiving that extra grant, which it may not get. It is doing a Liverpool and it will break the law. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), whose council is busily trying to lose his seat to the Liberals at the general election, will take that message back.

Sir Ian Percival: Once upon a time there was a direct relationship between rates and the ballot box, because most people who paid rates voted. If they found the rates too high, they voted the controlling party out of office. A great deal has happened to change that and to strike at the hypothesis on which the case of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was based.
In Liverpool 51 per cent. of the residents do not personally pay their rates. I do not complain about that, but one cannot ignore the fact that that means that 51 per cent. of voters have no interest in keeping rates down. Their only interest is in maintaining services, and I understand that. It is idle to ignore that such changes have taken place.
A further change is that at present 60 per cent. of the rates are paid by people who do not have a vote.

Ms. Harman: Yes they do.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Lady will have a chance to speak. Many of my constituents have businesses in Liverpool, so they are directly interested in the rates there. As they do not live there, they do not have a vote. Nevertheless, they conduct businesses and, I am happy to say, provide jobs for some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).
Between them, the business men pay 60 per cent. of the total rate but not one of them has a vote. So the relationship between rates and the ballot box has largely gone.

Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the people he is concerned about could do something immediately to stop their disfranchisement by living in Liverpool?

Sir Ian Percival: That is a very silly intervention. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Derby is happy that


some of my constituents pay rates in his constituency without being a burden upon it. They also provide jobs for his constituents.
Even despite these big changes, the system might work if we had the sense of responsibility about spending that we once had, and the same relationship between local and central Government. This does not exist any more; some authorities have been spending money like water.

Mr. Wareing: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, even under this Government, 47 per cent. of expenditure is financed by rate support grant, which comes out of taxation, so even those people who do not pay rates contribute indirectly by their payment of taxes such as VAT and Customs duties on alcohol and tobacco.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted another contribution that my constituents make to his. They probably pay a great deal more income tax per head than his constituents. That is right, because taxes are progressive. They contribute more and some of it goes to his constituents. That makes no dent in my argument.
Despite these changes, the system would work if some responsibility were shown about spending. But some Labour-controlled authorities have deliberately set out to embarrass the Government by wasteful spending.

Ms. Harman: That is nonsense.

Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Lady may not like it, but they are currying favour with voters who do not have to pay rates, at the expense of their political opponents. This wasteful expenditure falls directly on my constituents through the precepts and because so many of them pay rates in Liverpool. I say on behalf of my constituents, thank goodness some curbs have been placed on this spending.
The hon. Member for West Derby who so courteously gave way to me, as he always does, said one thing with which I do agree. I am glad somebody said it and that it came from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who would not give way on a very important point about this two weeks ago, because he knew what the question would be and did not want to answer it, tried to blame everything on Labour mismanagement of Liverpool during the last two years. But the hon. Member for West Derby drew attention, very properly, to the fact that, for a decade before that, there was terrible mismanagement by the Liberals. The Labour party took over that legacy of those 10 years and, by gum, made it even worse. It ill behoves the Liberal spokesman to try to get away with it by blaming everything in the past on Labour.
However, we can blame what is happening now on Labour. That was one of the ironies of what the hon. Member for Bootle said when he complained about the precepts of the joint authorities. The joint authorities—I think that I am still in order geographically—represent the elements of centralised government which we could not abolish. What they are charging is not the result of abolition of a second tier. We could not abolish those. We could not abolish the passenger transport authorities for the time being. It may be that under the Transport Act, there might be separate schemes. The hon. Member for Bootle was complaining that these three joint boards are

precepting for 77p as against 73p before. He says that that is very hard on Liverpool and on his own constituency —we must not mention that. We might make the same point about it if we were allowed to do so.
What a false point that is. All those three bodies are controlled by Labour politicians, who are spending all the money.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The proposed maximum precept is high because the authority has been denied entitlement to £25 million of block grant. The Government have taken the equivalent of a 14p precept off the joint boards by cutting their block grant by £25 million. The precept has been set not by Labour-controlled joint boards but by the Government.

Sir Ian Percival: They have been limited by the Government. Otherwise, they would have been even higher. That is what is so extraordinary about the hon. Gentleman's argument. What was his first point?

Mr. Allan Roberts: The bodies have received £25 million less in block grant.

Sir Ian Percival: I forgot it because it is such a bad point. The passenger transport authority could have spent anything up to £75 million and got a grant but it could not even keep its spending under that sum. It wanted to spend £103 million. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I were here listening to the arguments for that. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bootle was also present. The PTA wanted to spend £103 million. we stopped it, and kept the sum down to £81 million. That body did itself out of all chance of getting grant, and would have spent yet another £21 million if not stopped, which would have been yet another 7 per cent. on our rates.
My constituents are thoroughly glad that these limitations have been made. Those of them who pay rates in Liverpool are glad that their rates are to be kept within some sort of reason by this order.

Ms. Harriet Harman: This is one of the most absurd debates that I have heard in the House because we have no business going through the circumstances of local authorities about which we know nothing.
I freely admit that I know nothing about local authority expenditure and the need for services in Southport but, by the same token, the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) knows nothing about circumstances in Southwark, and it is not his business to vote in favour of an order that sets the rate in Southwark. The Government are asking hon. Members to vote on Southwark's rates when they have hardly been mentioned and when hon. Members know nothing about them and care even less. That is a disgrace.
For people in Peckham, the most important considerations are what sort of job they can get, how much they are likely to get paid for it, what sort of home they have and whether they can afford it, what the area in which they live is like—whether it is clean and safe to go out at night—and what services they get, especially services for the elderly and children. Local authority expenditure in those respects is critical.
Private sector jobs will not be attracted to an area which is run down and choked with traffic and in which the infrastructure is poor. The local authority must increase


spending to maintain existing services and bring new jobs into the area. Private risk capital will not convert derelict sites in blighted areas.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose——

Ms. Harman: Public investment can, and does, provide the lead to private investment. The council should be encouraged, not deterred from taking that lead. It also has an important role as an employer. Most of the people in Peckham who have jobs work directly or indirectly for the public services. They work in the Health Service and the education service. Many work in the House in canteens, lifts and restaurants.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose——

Ms. Harman: If the Government would only allow it to, the council should take on many more staff as caretakers in estates where people feel unsafe at night, doing building works and repairs to private homes. They could be employed as home helps to allow elderly people to remain independent in their own homes, in day nurseries so that working parents could go out to work secure in the knowledge that their children were being well looked after and in day centres for the elderly or the handicapped so that the community can be sure that its most vulnerable members are being looked after. There is plenty that needs to be done in Peckham and plenty of people need jobs. One has only to walk around to see that.
If we have a fair system of finance for local authorities and if the Government recognise the urgent need to use public money to narrow the gap between richer and poorer areas, Southwark will be able to employ more people to do those vital jobs. That will mean that a young person, instead of leaving school and going on the dole or into a no-hope training scheme, could train as a bricklayer to build homes or train as a nursery nurse to look after small children. When one meets a school leaver in Peckham one must be careful about asking the usual question, "What will you do when you leave school?" More often than not, they say, "I suppose I will go on the dole."

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose——

Ms. Harman: That is not because they lack motivation or initiative; it is just a recognition of the harsh realities in my constituency where in four of the eight wards, Brunswick, Liddle, Friary and Consort, more than 30 per cent. of them are unable to find work.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose— —

Ms. Harman: In the Liddle ward unemployment has risen over 90 per cent. between 1981 and 1985. By reducing the amount that Southwark can spend, the Government are directly responsible for preventing the public and the private investment that could create jobs. I should like to see more Government funding in Southwark so that we can also increase the wages of those who have work.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose——

Ms. Harman: The men and women who are working hard to provide vital services such as caretaking and home helps are already so low paid that, as well as working five days a week or more, many of them still have to claim benefit. For that not only do they earn very little but they earn the derision of Conservative Members. I think that that is a disgrace.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose——

Ms. Harman: Housing is of critical importance. Southwark has the largest percentage of council housing stock in London and it is of critical importance in Peckham. The overwhelming majority of people are in council homes because they cannot possibly afford to buy their own. Peckham has one of the lowest average incomes in London and the council housing position is critical. There are 10,000 families on Southwark's waiting list, and there are 10,000 families wanting a transfer.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: rose— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

Ms. Harman: There is empty land upon which the council could build new homes. It is unable to carry out the massive task in which it should be engaging of redesigning and refurbishing the deck access estates, which are not only unpopular but unhealthy and unsafe. For example, Gloucester grove estate was recently described by the national press as a "no-go" area when the postal workers stopped deliveries in protest at attacks on them. It is not difficult to understand the problems of the estate or to see how they could be remedied. Gloucester grove could be transformed into a desirable place to live if it was broken down into smaller units. It is too massive with over 1,000 flats. It could be transformed if the access to the flats was altered—at the moment tenants have to go up blind towers to reach the flats— if the refuse system was changed so that it efficiently coped with rubbish instead of efficiently breeding flies and constituting a fire hazard, if it had better transport which means more frequent bus services, if more people on the estate had jobs and if there were better leisure facilities in the area. Most of those factors are vital just to make it a decent place to live either as a pensioner or to bring up a young family. None of that is possible if there is a vice-like grip on council spending.
When Conservative or Liberal Members mention examples of expenditure which they think are wasteful, none of those figures, by any stretch of the imagination, are anything like the sum that needs to be spent to rehabilitate badly designed estates and to build new ones. Decent people have to continue to live in depressing and degrading housing. I have already mentioned the Gloucester grove estate, but the same applies to countless other estates in Peckham such as the Willowbrook estate, Aylesbury estate, Camden estate, north Peckham estate, and the Brandon estate. I mention that so that hon. Members can understand the size of the problem that needs to be faced.
Services are also very important in Peckham. I would like to mention social services, where Southwark has a good record. For example, it provides 11 home helps per thousand of the elderly population. In Tory areas such as Kingston, Surrey and Barnet there are fewer than four home helps per thousand of the population, which is 70 per cent. below the Government's guidelines. The Liberal Isle of Wight provides fewer than three home helps per thousand of the population. The Government are calling those councils responsible and calling Southwark council an irresponsible overspender. I believe that Southwark is a responsible council for trying to meet the needs of the people in the area. The Tory areas and the Liberal Isle of Wight are simply turning their backs on the needs of people in their areas. I should be interested to know


whether the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) supports the Isle of Wight in its appalling record of home help provision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not respond to that. We shall confine ourselves to the areas mentioned in the order.

Ms. Harman: Another indicator of the responsibility of Southwark council is that it tries to provide a decent number of day nursery places. Out of 108 local authorities, Southwark is the eleventh highest in the provision of day nursery places. However, it still has only four day nursery places for every 100 children. Over and over again parents come into my surgery desperate for a day nursery place. Those are services that people want and that the council wants to provide but central Government dictatorship prevents the council from providing what people want.
The "irresponsibility" that the Government say they are trying to stamp out is what we call care. The Government are really stamping out jobs, services and the hopes of thousands of people in Peckham. The Department of the Environment is no longer worthy of that name. It has simply become a sub-division of the Treasury. It has abandoned its role in favour of simply being an arm of the Government's brutal economic policies.

Mr. John Cartwright: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I oppose the order on principle. I strongly agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at the beginning of her speech when she said that it is not the job of the House to fix rates for individual local authorities. That is the job of elected local councillors. If I had wanted to continue fixing rates, I would have stayed in local government and not come to the House. Those of us who have experience of rate fixing know that it is not a particularly easy task. It requires a great deal of detailed background information. It involves taking difficult decisions on priorities and settling competing claims for resources. We have no information before us tonight to enable us to do any such thing.
The Government are displaying their usual take it or leave it attitude. All we have before us is one scrappy flimsy piece of paper with 11 figures of maximum rates set out on it. That is not the way in which the House of Commons can judge whether what the Government are proposing is reasonable or unreasonable. However it is dressed up, it is not parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply a rubber-stamping charade which I believe brings the House into dispute. If there were no other grounds for objecting to the order, that, in my view, would be a powerful one.
I object to the order because of the impact of many of the cuts that appear to flow from it. In my own authority in Greenwich, I noted that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who will reply to the debate, said:
Greenwich is being required to reduce its expenditure by 10 per cent. in real terms"—[Official Report, 31 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1255.]
As a former leader of Greenwich council, I know what a problem that will be. That is the magnitude of the cut that is being forced on my local authority. The difficulty is that

that cut is being taken at the last moment. No preparation has been made for any such reduction in spending. Throughout the current financial year we have seen, on the part of Greenwich and other rate-capped authorities, a continued and determined jacking-up of expenditure rather than any planned attempt to come to terms with reality. The difficulty of that is that when the crash comes and the axe falls it has to fall swiftly wherever the cuts can be made and that may not be where they ought to be made in any sensible decisions on priorities.
The spending limit for Greenwich is £95·3 million. The local authority has told me that a no-cuts budget including transferred GLC services would involve spending £116·2 million. Clearly, that leaves a shortfall of £20·9 million. I accept that there may be some hyping of the position by the London borough of Greenwich but, even allowing for that, it is still a massive cut to be made at short notice.
There is the strange situation of the transferred GLC services. There is a gap between what is allowed for the cost of these transferred services in the rate support grant settlement and what has been allowed in the rate limitation order. The shortfall for Greenwich is £780,000, for Islington it is £804,000 and for Lambeth is almost £1·4 million. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will explain how the Government can provide one definition for what is needed to meet the cost of these transferred services in the RSG settlement and another definition for the calculation of new rate limitation. This demonstrates once again the dubious basis on which rate limitation has been calculated.
One problem for all of us who object to rate capping on the basis that it will mean cuts—the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government referred to this—is the extraordinary virulence of the forecasts made this time last year. I have a document which was cirulated to every home in Greenwich by my local authority, predicting that rate capping would mean the sacking of up to 1,000 council workers. The leaflet gives a spine chilling list of the effects of rate capping:
more delays and queueing for all council services; substantial rent increases for council tenants; council housing taking longer to repair; increased charges on services for the elderly and handicapped; less nursery places for under-fives; home helps cut back; less books available in libraries; swimming pools, sports centres closed; roads and pavements not being swept regularly; refuse not being collected as often; community groups and small businesses losing their grant; ending training and apprenticeship schemes for school leavers.".
Not one of those things has happened. Not a single redundancy has occurred. In fact, the reverse has taken place, as the council has taken on many more employees and is launching new services, despite rate capping.
Greenwich is not the only place where we were told there would be the end of civilisation as we have come to know it. The leaflet points out that rate capping would affect not just Greenwich but the neighbouring boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark and Lambeth. It states:
The effects on south London would be catastrophic for it could mean the loss of 6,000 jobs. The total could rise to 10,000 with the proposed cuts to ILEA and GLC services. That means thousands fewer people buying goods in local shops, and firms and factories threatened with closure.
My council suggested that that extraordinary catalogue of doom and disaster would flow from rate capping.
I understand the point that we have come through the first year of rate capping and perhaps the position will not be as good in the second, but I believe that, if hon. Members and local authorities had not cried wolf so long


and so loud last year, it would be easier to believe what is said this year. Conservative Members cannot be surprised, after what they prophecised last year has not come about, if Ministers, and, more importantly, our electors have some doubts about the prophesies they are now making in the second year of rate capping.
My next point arises from what my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said and relates to the so-called rates rebellion last year. Happily, we are not offered an action replay this year and local authorities are not refusing to levy a rate. I want to hark back to last year. It is worth reminding ourselves that the annual report of the Audit Commission, which was published last July, referred to the failure to levy a rate. It stated:
The ratepayers in each of those authorities have suffered severe losses, that would not have been incurred if rate demands had been issued in April. That the authorities concerned include some of the most deprived in England and Wales makes such waste even more deplorable.
I strongly endorse that conclusion.
The Audit Commission went on to set out what it saw as its role. It said:
if local electors are content to have their affairs administered in this manner in the last analysis that is their affair. The auditors' duty is to bring the extent of any loss that is being incurred, to the attention of the local electors— so that they are properly informed.
I wholeheartedly endorse that approach. Sadly, it is not being carried out. I have had a lengthy and not very profitable correspondence with the Audit Commission asking it to quantify the severe losses that have been inflicted on my ratepayers and the ratepayers of other local authorities. If it is the auditors' job to inform local electors, for London that must be done before 8 May this year, because that is the only opportunity in a four-year period that Londoners get to vote for their local authority. If we are asking the electors of the boroughs to make up their minds whether they want their affairs conducted in such a way, the auditors have a duty to tell my electors and those of other boroughs just what those severe losses are. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State will provide us with helpful information.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech which is, as usual, an important one. I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to Ministers about this matter. Although the Audit Commission is totally independent of us, as it is of the hon. Gentleman, this is such an important matter that I should be happy to assist him in drawing it to the attention of the commission.

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful for that offer, but I must in all honesty tell the Minister that I have written to the Secretary of State and sent him copies of all the correspondence. The Secretary of State very helpfully said that he would refer the matter back to the Audit Commission, with which I had been corresponding for some months. That did not seem to be a terribly helpful response. If the Minister is offering a more positive response, I shall be happy to take up the offer.
We have had limited experience of the rate-capping arrangement. Our experience in the past year confirms the judgment that my colleagues and I made of the principle of rate capping last year. It is politically inept; it is a constitutional absurdity, and it represents a triumph for centralised bureaucracy. For those reasons, we shall vote against the order.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I supported rate capping last year, and I support it this year. During the 1984–85 winter, when we considered part I of the Rates Bill, my local authority of Leicester was rate-capped at a rate of 25·22p in the pound. By rate capping, I am convinced that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saved ratepayers in Leicester and in the other 17 local authorities more than £300 million. The CBI has always welcomed rate capping as a successful measure.
Is the order tough enough? I believe that my feeling is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Artless). We were threatened last year. We are threatened now that there will be massive job losses at the city council's headquarters. However, more employees have been taken on since Leicester was rate-capped. There are now 4,126 employees. The jobs which we were told would be lost have continued. Sometimes, rate capping seems to be an advantage to some Labour authorities—a point that concerns me a little.
I would question the basis on which the list was drawn up. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, but it seems strange that Basildon and Thamesdown, which behaved in similar ways to Leicester, have been rate-capped this year but Leicester has not. I understand that last year £150,000 was spent by my authority on fighting rate-capping even before the council was rate-capped. My concern would be——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was present when I issued reproaches earlier for straying outside the order. I hope that he will speak to the authorities mentioned in the order.

Mr. Bruinvels: The point I was trying to make is that once an authority is nominated, it is not totally bound to the requirement of keeping to the order, in the sense that although it says that it is, it threatens massive job reductions, which do not materialise. I have tried to assist the House by giving the example of my local authority following the order that we passed a year ago. Once the rate was levied it went ahead——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a re-run of 1985. Would the hon. Member please speak to the order before the House?

Mr. Bruinvels: I would like the order to be withdrawn and to be re-submitted with my local authority included in it. I believe that if Leicester had been put on the local authority list it might have learnt a lesson, as would other local authorities which have not learnt a lesson and which continue to be a burden on the taxpayer and continue to damage the prospects of businesses, which we wish to encourage in our local areas. Those businesses have been penalised by new rates being levied and by local authorities, such as Leicester, being left off the list, and introducing a mammoth rate rise.
Far from cutting out waste by rate capping, it is made up in the following year. I should like to describe a typical example of what that might mean to local authorities. One defect in the order is that a local authority such as Leicester can levy 25·22p in the pound in the rate-capped year, and the next year, when it is let off the hook, it can set 45·5p in the pound, which is a city rate rise of 80 per cent. Those


authorities give a notional figure for the year when they were rate-capped. The notional figure would have been 39·9p in Leicester's case if they had not been rate-capped. In Camden, for example, where I fought an honourable fight with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for the local council a few years ago—he won on that occasion, but he will not win next time—we saw a large amount of public expenditure by the council and I wish to see an end to that. I want an end to the jobs for the boys that some local authorities give. I know of a case in the local authority that I represent where my Labour opponent was found a job within three months of being elected as a Labour candidate. It worries me that all those local authorities are taking advantage of their position.
I urge the Minister to justify why some authorities have been identified in the order and others have not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister attempts to do so, I shall have to rule him out of order also. The hon. Member must recognise that he is being unfair to his colleagues from Leicester who might reasonably have assumed that Leicester would not be debated tonight. I hope that he will confine himself, as I have instructed him, to the order before the House.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is no longer advice; it is an instruction to the hon. Member.

Mr. Bruinvels: The order concerns all rate bills of the authorities that have been nominated. My concern is that those authorities are allowed to levy rates that will be protected. I urge the Minister to give the undertaking that other authorities will continue to be considered, because it is a rates blow in local authorities out of the rate-capped area for the residents to be suddenly presented with massive rate rises. Basildon has probably been warning everyone in the area that it is still fighting for its services and protecting jobs. No doubt other authorities that are not rate-capped are also doing so.
The principle of rate capping and the order must be welcomed by all those who believe that not enough consideration is being given to businesses that pay the largest rates and receive no opportunity to be properly represented. A local authority says that it has a mandate, but it has a limited mandate to increase services, because the mandate is probably no more than 30 to 40 per cent. of the electorate.
We must consider the real rate for the future. We do not want artificially depressed rates whacked up the following year, because the authority is not rate-capped. Ratepayers are entitled to a better opportunity and full representation. Chambers of commerce and industry, including Leicester, are worried about the rates burden and the fact that jobs could be lost. Many businesses have become political shuttlecocks in hung councils. We must oppose any failure of the local authority to consult with businesses about the rates that they would like, so that a fair accord can be established between businesses and the local authorities. Both sides must be properly considered. Huge rate rises and any political activities, whether in Basildon, Thamesdown or Leicester, which abuse ratepayers' money are anathema to society.
The order will encourage other local authorities to take care or they will be rate-capped. I am envious of those authorities which have been rate-capped today. I look forward to Leicester being included in the next round.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Camden council and consequently the Camden people have received no central Government grant since 1980–81. The last time that they received any grant from central Government was 1979–80 when central Government's contribution was equal to 23 per cent. of Camden's local expenditure. If the Government were to finance 23 per cent. of Camden's expenditure now, it would amount to a grant of £30 million. Despite the absence of any grant and Government cries of profligacy, the level of local rates in Camden has scarcely changed since 1981–82, when it was 89·4p in the pound. It is now 90·2p, which is an increase of 2·9 per cent. During that time the retail price index has increased by 25 per cent. If Government spending was only 2·9 per cent. in relation to that increase, we would be considerably better off, especially in view of what they spend their money on.
The Government have decided to set a limit on Camden's spending, which amounts to a cut in real terms of 14 per cent. I do not believe that the Minister will be able to argue with those facts. However, the Government-imposed limit is not all, even if those who write Ministers' speeches seem to believe that it is funny. The abolition of the GLC is likely to lead to additional calls on Camden's expenditure. The Government are allowing Camden £16·3 million. Camden estimates that the cost of the GLC services that will take over will be about £25 million. It may be that the figure is somewhere in between—I am prepared to accept that—but if it is, any additional sum above £16·3 million will have to be met from Camden's other spending.
On top of that, the Government have made no allowance for the increase in Camden council spending on homelessness. Net expenditure on homelessness as recently as 1983–84 was £782,000. This year, it will be £7·6 million—an increase of nearly 10 times, which results from several causes. There has been an increase in homelessness, with a massive number of people in temporary accommodation, and there has been a massive increase in the number of people applying on the grounds that they are homeless. Many of these are large families that need substantial places in which to live. The result has been an increase in the costs that Camden incurs in trying to deal with the problem.
In 1983–84, the average cost to the council of placing people in bed and breakfast was £90 per week, but the current cost is £174 a week. That is partly because there has been an increase in charges, and partly because the council properly decided that it had been leaving homeless families in accommodation that was dangerous and unsafe. Indeed, some people placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by the council were burnt to death. It is right and proper that the council has knocked 22 of the cheapest hotels off its list. That is a step forward, but the Government are making no allowance.
Another massive reduction in income has resulted from the DHSS decision to reduce board and lodging limits, which has reduced its contribution by between £26 and £43·50 per member of a family. No hotel in the borough of Camden meets the council's environmental and health


requirements and charges less than the new Government limits. Consequently, the council is making up the difference. The Government, after deciding to punish the homeless instead of getting at the landlords who rip off their tenants, are punishing the ratepayers who, through the council, are trying to do something about the problem.
The estimated cost to Camden next year of the Government's measure is an increase of £3 million in its spending on the homeless, and no compensatory payment is being made. The council will also lose GLC stress money, which would have made a considerable contribution to preventing rates increasing next year. Camden has always had certain special features. Three main line stations disgorge from time to time people who need much attention and help from the council. There is a big concentration of hospitals and the council has to provide services such as social workers. Land costs are high, and continue to rise. That has other knock-on costs on council spending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, we feature, lamentably, in all the stress index factor lists.
It is worth pointing out that one of our main problems is that hon. Members representing inner city seats have to put up with decisions being imposed on our electorate by those who appear to have no conception of what is going on. It is worth comparing the circumstances in my constituency with those in the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The density of population in my constituency is 34 times that of Mole Valley. The number of under-16s living with one parent in my constituency is five times the level in Mole Valley. The number of households that do not live in self-contained homes is eight times the level in Mole Valley. The number of unemployed in my constituency is six times the level in Mole Valley, and that ignorance from the Secretary of State is a sign of what he is up to.
This debate should be unnecessary. Labour Members should not have to argue the merits of spending on the authorities concerned. It is startling that the Government are forcing the House to discuss the minutiae of local government spending.

Mr. John Powley: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way.
The Government are rejecting the basis of our democracy. Pluralism has always been at its heart and the Labour party still stands for it. We believe in separate and distinct sections of power and influence, and in the right to dissent. The Government believe in curtailing, crippling, stifling and subduing the right to dissent. They are opposed to people having the right to decide what they want in their locality.
Camden council is imperfect— it was when I was leader of the council and even more so when the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was leader. The people of Camden should be able to decide what the council spends and what services it provides. That is what we have always had in the past and it is deplorable and despicable that we have a Government that say that the Tory party in these localities has sunk so low that it stands no chance of being elected to bring in the Government's policies.
If the Government had any confidence in Tory policies and in local Tory parties, they would be prepared to let the

local electorate decide what it spent and what services are provided. This is a gutless and undemocratic Government. The sooner we get rid of them, the better.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Various criticisms have been made of the borough of Lambeth, and I should like to reply to some of them. It will be evident to anybody in the Chamber that Lambeth ranks high on any single index of deprivation or, indeed, on indices of multiple deprivation, whether on the Department of the Environment's figures on this matter or on other studies.
There has been an implied criticism that boroughs such as Lambeth simply wish to raise rates ad infinitum. I stress that that is not the case. As the deputy leader of the council today stressed to me, Lambeth is not requesting the right to raise rates still further. The council recognises the detrimental effects on living standards caused by high rates which effectively pass on to local people the costs of providing essential services inadequately provided by the Government.
The problems which Lambeth faces are these. Since the Government came to power in 1979, there has been a year-by-year reduction in central Government grants to the borough, a total of £113 million between 1979 and 1985 if the 1978–79 RSG is taken as the base year. That is the equivalent of Lambeth's annual spending in one year which has been taken away from it by the cuts in the rate support grant and by other Government cuts.
The Government also fail to recognise the problems which will be caused for Lambeth following abolition of the GLC, exacerbating the concern of organisations now funded by the GLC which have an uncertain future, granted the lack of guarantee of alternative provision of finance.
The so-called Richmond and transitional schemes mean that many groups are now turning to Lambeth council or making representations to me as a Member of Parliament or to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), requesting additional cash aid to stave off the issuing of redundancy notices.
There are in essence two objectionable issues behind the order. One is the starting point on the grant-related expenditure assessment, GREA, and the second is the penalties involved. According to the Department of the Environment, GREA is meant to represent
for each authority the cost of a similar standard of service which takes account of variation in need".
The present formula fails to reflect Lambeth's needs in several respects — for example, the cost of hospital social workers for authorities with large hospitals in their areas such as my constituency, which includes St. Thomas's hospital and is bordered by King's college hospital; and the cost of fulfilling the council's obligations under section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
The largest single example of inequity, however, is the so-called 30p issue. The Government in 1981–82 urged authorities to increase rents by £3·25, and £2·95 of this tallied with a deduction made on housing subsidy, but an extra 30p increase was encouraged.
The Government calculated the total income throughout the country that 30p would produce, then deducted it pro rata against revenue account deficits. The result is that Lambeth's deduction is not 30p but £1·70, an


over-charge on GREA of £3·6 million which, with penalty, means a cost in cash terms of £7·2 million to Lambeth in 1986–87.
A range of products is at risk, as illustrated in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), only a few days ago—a range of some 50 projects whose bids and submissions total some £2,065,000. However, only £1,300,000 will be made available to meet this. What is the economic basis for this policy? The Minister cannot justify it upon the monetarist ground of crowding out private expenditure by public expenditure. He ought to know that over 95 per cent. of the council houses in England and Wales are constructed by private contractors. Every £100 of cuts imposed on local authorities mean that £95 is taken away from the rotarians and the other small builders who voted with enthusiasm for this Government but who now find that they are unemployed.
The result of a two-thirds cut in the council house budget means that company liquidations in the construction sector have risen from 1,000 a year in 1980 to nearly 2,000 in 1984. Hundreds of thousands of workers are now unemployed. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands — indeed, millions — of houses are unfit for human habitation because they lack basic amenities. That is the irony of the Government's policy. Only last October a leader in the Financial Times said:
Monetarism is dead—official.
The Government have abandoned monetary targets. Why do they not abandon these targets for local authorities and respect their right to reflect the wishes of their electors in the ballot box rather than in the black boxes of the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Jack Straw: I commend many of the Opposition speeches, in particular the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). He went straight to the heart of our objection to the order.
At the heart of traditional Conservative principles lies the idea of freedom. This was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Freedom of the individual has been the Conservative battle cry down the ages. Their claim is that freedom of the individual is not possible unless people can form themselves into associations or institutions, free from interference from or control by the state.

Mr. Waldegrave: Hear, hear.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), supports that proposition. The notion of freedom lies behind the Conservative party's subscription to private enterprise. It lay behind the Prime Minister's 1979 rhetoric about rolling back the frontiers of the state. It also lay behind the claim that town hall should come before Whitehall. So strong was this idea that the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government devoted a whole book to the subject, entitled "The Binding of Leviathan." Generous to a fault, he even gave me a copy of this book——

Mr. Powley: Was it a signed copy?

Mr. Straw: No, it is not yet signed. He gave me a copy of his book at the end of the proceedings on the Rates Bill. I shall not embarrass him by quoting from his book, despite the undoubted boost that this would give to what I imagine are now its flagging sales.

Mr. Waldegrave: They are entirely flat.

Mr. Straw: The Minister says that they are entirely flat. However, in one area of our national life after another this Government have turned the traditional Conservative value of freedom of choice upon its head. Indeed, they have torn up page after page of what the Minister said was central to the heart of the old Conservatism. The frontiers of the state have most obviously been rolled forward in the areas of law and order and unemployment. The 4 million unemployed know of no land beyond the frontiers of the authoritarian state. Their abject dependence upon the power of the state is total.
As for local government, the new Conservative party has abolished those councils to whose policies it took objection, to which the ever dirty and cheap chairman of the Conservative party was candid enough to testify. The present Government are seeking to deny to councillors freedom to speak as they choose. So extreme is this proposal that the Government have been unable to convince their loyal supporters in local government and in the other place of the rightness of their action.
Alongside all this, two years ago the Government took the power directly to control the budgets and the rates of every single local authority in the land. This order affects only 11 authorities, but we shall do well to remember that the Rates Act 1984 under which this order is made contains the power to control the budgets of every local authority. This order is but the apex of a vast framework of controls and threat of controls that lie as a pall over the work of every one of the 24,000 councillors in this land.
Many of my hon. Friends have spoken with great eloquence and knowledge about the effect that these orders will have upon their communities, and there is no need for me to repeat what they have said. Hon. Members who represent Hackney, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts), and hon. Members who represent Liverpool, Southwark, Camden and Lambeth all have great knowledge of information about, and experience of, their areas, and know what is likely to benefit their constituents. Such knowledge, information and experience is far greater than ever this Government or any other central Government could have.
We have heard a great deal about Lambeth. I declare an interest because I am a ratepayer in Blackburn, which was almost rate-capped last year and of Lambeth which was rate-capped last year and this year and, no doubt will be next year. The Minister gave himself away because he seemed to think that I would be pleased that my rates have gone down by £20 and that they might have gone down by a further £120. One of the many things that separate his side from ours is that we are willing to pay for public services. Those of us who have broad backs and relatively high incomes—I count myself and my hon. Friends in that—think it is right that we should pay for decent services for the rest of the population. I do not begrudge the money that I pay to Lambeth. I begrudge some of the taxes taken from me to pay for wasteful expenditure on Trident far more than I begrudge the money I pay towards the services provided in Lambeth.


As I have said time and again, I look upon the £550 in rates that I was paying before rate capping on what is not altogether a modest-sized house as a good bargain for the services that I and my children receive. Moreover, I look upon it as a reasonable contribution towards those people who are less well off in that borough than we are.
Sadly, and just for the moment, Basildon has only Conservative representatives. It will only be temporary, as last year's county election results show and as this year's district council election results will show. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) criticised his council, but, although it has a different political complexion from his, he was willing to say that his council had done good things. Repeatedly, hon. Members who represent Basildon district have denigrated the achievement of the people in Basildon council. Never once have we heard them applauding the work of that council or the fact that its work was applauded for efficiency by the Audit Commission. What is more, we never once heard that Basildon is being rate-capped, that this Government have taken control of Basildon, despite the fact that Basildon is not receiving a single penny piece by way of central Government support. All the services in Basildon are being paid for directly by its ratepayers. What effrontery the Government have to tell the people of Basildon how to spend their own money.

Mr. Amess: I am rather surprised at what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says, because he clearly did not listen to my opening remarks. I spent a quarter of my speech saying what a fine town Basildon was. What annoys me and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) is that many of the achievements of which I am rightly proud and about which we read in propaganda sheets such as Link, are claimed by the council when in fact many of them are due to the good work of the Government and the development corporation.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my point entirely. He did praise the development corporation and even had the cheek to praise the Government for their contribution in winding up the development corporation and stopping Basildon from being a new town. I am glad he praised the new town, because Basildon is a Labour achievement. It was the Labour party that got the new towns going, and Basildon would never have achieved what it has achieved if there had not been a partnership between the new town development corporation on the one hand and its excellent district council on the other.
Swindon has been discussed, which is a Labour-controlled council. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swindon is not in his place. Swindon has an excellent authority and it has expanded as a new town without any help from central Government. It has been successful but the Secretary of State is penalising it for its success. He is doing so despite the fact that its growth in expenditure since 1979, at about 103 per cent., is far less than that of central Government over the same period.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) asserted that Leicester should have been included in the order. I have no doubt that that is one reason why he will vote against it. Leicester was not rate-capped this year but it is suffering from the consequences of being rate-capped last year. The House will recall that last year the Government proposed that Leicester's rate should be cut nearly in half. They claimed — no doubt they were whipped on by the two temporary Conservative Members

for the city, the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer)—that Leicester could live off its savings and balances. Having said—[Interruption.] I think that the Secretary of State said "cock-up".

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I said that the hon. Gentleman should not be cocky.

Mr. Straw: I shall move on to the cock-up. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), was the Secretary of State for cock-ups. Having said that Leicester's rate should be halved, he changed his mind and said that there should be a cut of only a quarter. That was an error rate, as I think the Department of Health and Social Security describes these things, of only 100 per cent. The Opposition warned at the time, especially my hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), that the people of Leicester would be forced to pay dearly for the vindictiveness of their Conservative Members. To restore a 25 per cent. cut involves a 33 per cent. increase, and as Leicester was left last year without resources to meet immediate commitments the increase is likely to be a great deal more. The rate increases which the people of Leicester are to face are the direct responsibility of the Government and of Leicester Conservative Members, who urged a course of madness upon the Government for which their constituents are now having to pay.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What message will the hon. Gentleman give the ratepayers of Leicester who saw the city rate-capped and a low rate? They were grateful to the two Conservative Members who campaigned for that and lobbied the then Secretary of State. They now find that the rates have shot up by 80 per cent. At the same time the local council is spending money on a Nelson Mandela park. It is trying to twin with Nicaragua and is imposing irrelevant and cheap Labour party propaganda upon Leicester which the ratepayers and those running businesses in the city are opposed to desperately. Both ratepayers and business people want to get on with bringing more people to work in the city and not fewer.

Mr. Straw: The message that I give to the hon. Gentleman is that what is good for Leicester is a matter for the people of Leicester, and that that is a matter for them to decide. They showed clearly in the shire county elections of 1985 that they supported the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman would have lost his seat, as would his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, if they had been up for election as well. I am sure that that will be made equally clear in the May elections.
Much has been made of the fact that some of the dire warnings of the rate-capped authorities last year of the effect of rate capping upon jobs and services have not come to pass. My answer to that is "Not yet". In any event the fact that they have not is no thanks to the Secretary of State or his predecessor. To the extent that the consequences have not yet occured, that is due partly to the factors to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred in an intervention, and partly due to authorities resorting to a number of accountancy arrangements, which, whatever their


technical differences, have the common characteristic of enabling authorities to pay later for expenditure which they incur now.
Apparently the Secretary of State is opposed to these arrangements. He had better say now whether he deplores or applauds these authorities in so far avoiding cuts. It is a matter of record that his rates and expenditure limits would require a reduction in expenditure by Greenwich of 10 per cent. in real terms, by Hackney of over 12 per cent. and Lewisham by 14 per cent. That is the direct result of rate capping. That is what the Under-Secretary of State said in an Adjournment debate on 31 January. These cuts have not been achieved yet, but the point for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to acknowledge is that, if the cuts are achieved, they can only mean equivalent cuts in staff and services and in the jobs in private firms, so many of which directly depend on the public service. Is that what the Government want? Do they want cuts of the magnitude which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment spoke about? If not, it is time that the Government took account of the damage that they are doing in these areas and of the crisis that they are creating.
Local government needs no lectures from central Government about the accounting devices. Central Government have corrupted and abused established accounting conventions to cover up the failure of their own policies no more so than in their use of the proceeds of the sale of the public's capital in nationalised industries, to offset current expenditure and current tax cuts. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), a former Treasury Minister, described that in his own way as dubious.
As traditional Conservatives know only too well, one objection to using the central apparatus of the state to make decisions which should rightfully be made at local level, is that, while it is easy to centralise power, it is far more difficult to collect centrally and then to use all the necessary information to exercise that power wisely. Nowhere do we see that process operating better—or worse — than in rate capping. The effects there are arbitrary, unfair and sometimes wholly unanticipated.
The system is unfair because of the measures used to determine rate capping. Target is one measure, but that is so unfair that the Secretary of State has made much of the fact that he has now abolished it. Grant-related expenditure assessment is a second measure. That system, as the Secretary of State knows only too well, was never designed to be used for control purposes. While the Secretary of State's predecessor described the GREAs as robust and objective, the present Secretary of State has described them as byzantine in their complexity and impossible to understand. It is obvious that the GREAs cannot be both byzantine and impossible to understand and also robust and objective.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): That is right.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State says that he is right and that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) is wrong.
Of course the Secretary of State is right, but why then, is he using a system that is byzantine in its complexity and

impossible to understand? Why does the Secretary of State pretend that the system is a fair one with which to judge individual authorities?
A comparison of the increase in authorities' spending is no base to determine rate capping. We have heard much from the Secretary of State about the amounts by which rate-capped local authorities have increased their expenditure since the Government came to power. I must tell the Secretary of State that of the 11 authorities that have been rate-capped, six have increased their expenditure by less than central Government have increased their spending. We do not hear much about the fact that they have only increased their spending at or below the level of central Government. Lambeth, Haringey, Islington, Thamesdown and Liverpool have all matched or been below central Government spending.
I had the Library working on these figures all day. The figures for local government are freely available but the Library was working on central Government figures as the Government have stopped providing any information about the expansion of central Government's current spending. The figures cannot be found in the public expenditure White Paper and telephone calls to the Treasury could not elucidate that information. The Government have stopped counting their own current expenditure.

Dr. Cunningham: I wonder why.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend says he wonders why, I admit that I wonder why as well. I fancy it is because the Government are embarrassed that they came to power pledging to cut public spending and that they have hoisted public spending by keeping 4 million people unemployed and building ludicrous nuclear submarines.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Oh, really.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Leicester, East says, "Oh, really," but we shall see when the orders for the nuclear submarines are cancelled.
We hear that Camden's expenditure has increased by 147 per cent. Why do we not hear about Brentwood, an urban Conservative authority, which has had an expenditure increase of 145 per cent.? West Wiltshire's expenditure has risen by 145 per cent. We hear of Hackney's expenditure rising and that has risen from a very low base, but what about the City of London? Hackney looks like an authority run by church mice when compared with the City of London. Hackney's expenditure has risen by 172 per cent. while the City of London has increased its expenditure by 300 per cent. over the past seven years. Will the Under-Secretary of State say anything about that when she replies to the debate? Will the City of London be rate-capped? Of course it will not be.
There is then the effect of rate capping upon Conservative-controlled shire councils. Rate capping was sold to a sceptical Conservative audience on the basis that it would help them. Last year, the former Secretary of State claimed:
the more favourable targets which we have been able to give low-spending authorities for 1985–86 have been possible only through the savings which have been achieved in public expenditure terms by rate-capping the highest spenders.
He went on to say, and I hope the Secretary of State agrees with this:


Thus, low-spending authorities will benefit from rate capping."— [Official Report, 16 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 416–17.]
The truth is the reverse. Low-spending authorities have been hit by rate-capping. Rate capping was explicitly designed to bring down the expenditure of rate-capped authorities. Those authorities were bound to earn more grant and, as that grant comes from a fixed pool, it would be taken away from the lower spending Conservative-controlled authorities.
That is so mad as to be almost unbelievable but, in support of my contention that is happening, I must quote Mr. John Banham, the controller of the Audit Commisssion. He said of the system of which the Secretary of State is the proud architect:
If I were asked to design a system that would produce more waste and inefficiency … it is not immediately certain to me what additional complications I would build in.
I do not claim to be clairvoyant but last year I predicted what would happen. When we concluded the debate last year I asked how many more times we would have to ask the Secretary of State about the effect on Conservative-controlled councils. I said:
Does he not understand that if all the authorities did what he told them and all spent at GREA, rates in Berkshire would have to go up by 20 per cent. and rates in Essex would have to go up by 25 per cent?"—[Official Report, 6 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1018.]
I had a wonderfully considered reply from the former Secretary of State. It is no wonder that he was fired. He said, "That is silly." When I continued he said, "That is stupid." What has happened? Have the rates of Essex and Berkshire remained stable as a result of rate capping? I see the Secretary of State is smiling. It is true that I got the rates in Berkshire wrong because they have only increased by 13 per cent. but rates in Essex have increased by 19 per cent. It is a Conservative-dominated council. It is supported by the Liberals and the SDP. Across the country what was predicted has come true more quickly than I could have expected. Buckinghamshire is raising its rates by 30 per cent. Dorset by 20 per cent, Lincolnshire by 22 per cent, Norfolk by 19 per cent. and West Sussex by 19 per cent. Will the Under-Secretary tell us who is now being silly and stupid?
Conservative Members should not believe that once the brave new world has dawned and the Green Paper "Paying for local government" has been implemented in full their troubles will be over. Business rates in Conservative-controlled areas will rocket as a result of the changes. Collecting the poll tax will be a nightmare. For all the synthetic nonsense about the way in which the changes will improve local accountability, the full apparatus of centralised control will remain. More power will be given to central Government through their direct control of the income of the business rate and its level, and rate capping and poll tax capping will continue.
All that will occur because of the triumph of Treasury Ministers over the Secretary of State, because of their failure to represent the interests of local Government, and because of their refusal to get their brain around the fact that even with their economic policy there is no economic case for controlling what local authorities spend from their own resources. If the Government deny that, let them spell out why the United States and West Germany have never found such controls necessary, despite espousing similar economic principles but with markedly more successful results.
On Saturday, the Secretary of State, no doubt with his acolytes, will attend the Conservative local Government conference in a vain attempt to prepare the faithful for their coming annihilation at the district council elections in May. The Secretary of State was so worried about the attendance at this conference that he wrote to all Conservative councillors in January to encourage them to turn up. His letter is illuminating. First, he thanked all the councillors for their hard work
in maintaining the thin blue line in town and county halls up and down the country"—
a line so thin that it will be broken with ease in May. He continued:
yours is often a thankless task, with poor rewards and long hours away from your families,
For once the Secretary of State is right. It was once a pleasure to serve on a local authority, a thankful task with great satisfactions. It has become a thankless task with poor rewards because of the actions of the Government in wrecking the relationship between the town hall and Whitehall and by denying basic freedoms to authorities.
The Secretary of State continued:
we are all agreed that the present Local Government finance system is unfair, and stifles accountability, and is at the heart of the many conflicts between Local and Central Government over the years.
The Secretary of State was also right when he said that. Rate capping lies at the core of this crazy, byzantine, impossible and unfair system. If the Secretary of State had the courage of his convictions he would be voting with us tonight against this order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have been extremely interested in listening to this debate. In spite of all the anxieties, worries, complaints and hysteria about this measure, only six out of 11 Labour authorities have been defended this evening by hon. Members. I expected a great deal more from those hon. Members who are concerned about the expenditure of local authorities.
We have had representations from Hackney, Liverpool, Greenwich, Camden and Lambeth. We had a representation from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on behalf of Southwark and also representations from Sefton. I will now make a representation from Kingston. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey not only managed to talk about Southwark but also, incidentally, about Lambeth and Liverpool—that is par for the course.
When my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government opened this debate he predicted that we would have a fair old litany of complaints about the problems that ratecapping will produce for authorities. There has not been a word of honest regret that the actions of authorities such as Camden and Lambeth are so irresponsible that they are the ones which are bringing local government into disrepute.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) complained that local government was being over-centralised by wicked central Government. The present state of local government has nothing to do with central Government. It is due to the irresponsible attitude of the Labour-held local authorities. They have set themselves up to try to distort and operate against central Government in a wilful way which has misdirected their efforts.


A great deal has been made by Opposition Members about local authority spending. They have suggested that the rate limitation order introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had as dire an effect on Conservative authorities as it has had on Labour authorities. It is true that most local authorities spend a great deal of money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) quite rightly drew attention to the amount of money that is spent by local authorities. Local authority revenue spending is £25 billion per annum. All hon. Members are aware that local government spends 11 per cent. of the gross domestic product of this country. That is one quarter of all public expenditure. It is a great deal of money and it is not merely Labour authorities but also Conservative authorities which are spending and growing in real terms, day by day and year by year. We must take that into account. It is well and good that many Conservative-controlled authorities have organised and run expenditure effectively and efficiently. They serve the local people without trying to increase rates by huge sums year on year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made an excellent speech, setting out clearly some of the iniquities of the council by which his constituency has the misfortune to be run. [Interruption.] His authority is extraordinary. It spends money as though it has gone out of fashion. My hon. Friend explained how the public relations unit seeks to discover the public's views on education.

Mr. Straw: The Minister said that Basildon council spends money as though it has gone out of fashion. Since Basildon's increase in spending of 121 per cent. is four percentage points below central Government's increase in spending, would she say that the Prime Minister is spending money as though it has gone out of fashion?

Mrs. Rumbold: It depends entirely from where one starts. The public relations unit is taking soundings about the provision of education services, which is not the responsibility of a district authority. That was my hon. Friend's point. Moreover, the council has founded an interesting unit called BEDCO which plans to borrow £15 million for worthy and, no doubt, useful projects. The future ratepayers of Basildon will have to pay for that, and we should not forget that for one moment. It sounded to me as though the public relations unit intended to take over the duties of the Boundary Commission by tinkering with its recommendations. All in all, my hon. Friend has every cause to support the actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I was a councillor and regarded it as a great privilege to serve as a member of the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames council. I also regarded it as a great duty to take care how I spent other people's money. I am aware of the need to maintain services and to ensure that they are efficient and well balanced, but that should not be at the expense either of businesses and commerce, which provide 60 per cent. of the revenue raised at local level, or of domestic ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) spoke about jobs in local government. It is important to consider the provision of jobs through local government expenditure and how it raises rates. By raising rates, jobs

in the private sector are diminished, and by increasing public sector employment, one does not necessarily improve the quality of life within a local authority.

Mr. John Fraser: rose— —

Mrs. Rumbold: I wish to develop my argument, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested in my comments.
One does not do the best for one's constituents by creating jobs in the public sector. Lambeth, for example, was curious in the way in which it created some jobs. Not so long ago, Lambeth had a poet.

Mr. Fraser: A poet?

Mrs. Rumbold: Indeed, Lambeth had a poet.

Mr. Fraser: The Queen has a poet.

Mrs. Rumbold: With great respect, the Queen's poet is free. I am in favour of poetry. Indeed, the longer I stay in the House, the more I realise that one must read well-written poems from time to time as light relief. I would prefer people to write spontaneous poetry rather than be employed by the likes of Messrs. Knight and company on Lambeth council, eulogising their activities.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give the House one example of how rate capping makes a council more efficient?

Mrs. Rumbold: Rate-capped local authorities have much better balances. Because the rates are limited, such councils will attract more grant, which enables most of them to spend efficiently and give their people the benefit of good services. It is a great pity that Opposition members ask questions and then flatly refuse to listen to the answers.
We have heard about the iniquities of rate capping. We have heard how it is unnecessary and unfair and prevents local authorities from serving people. We have heard how it prevents them from carrying out their mandates. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) talked a great deal, and with some affection, about local government. I am glad to hear that he has affection for local government. He said that the rate-capped authorities are together responsible for the expenditure of £1,103·5 million. That almost makes the point that they are very high-spending authorities.
If there is ever a Labour Government, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as sanguine about the relationship between that Government and local government. I am sure that he is ready to confess that the Government have a responsibility for the overall economy.

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will now explain how the total budgets of rate-capped authorities can show whether they are high or low spenders. The figure that I gave was the total of their budgets. Any conclusion that she can draw from that figure about whether they are high or low spenders would be interesting for the House. [Interruption.] Perhaps she will listen to me rather than to the Secretary of State, who is shouting in her ear. My point, which she is singularly refusing to answer, is that the House has no knowledge of the nature, detail, composition or necessity of those expenditures in those budgets.

Mrs. Rumbold: The criteria for rate-capping authorities is that they should be expending 20 per cent over their grant-related expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) laid


that down last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also laid down the criteria for ratecapping. It is most interesting that the hon. Member for Copeland said that, if ever there were a Labour Government, God forbid, he would abolish the Rates Act 1984. If he is prepared to abolish that Act, I wonder how long a Labour Government would allow local authority expenditure to increase.
In 1975, when I was a councillor, Tony Crosland announced to the world of local government that the party was over and that spending had to come to an end. I remember because I took note of what he said, as did many Conservative-controlled authorities. We started to curb our expenditure. It is a great pity that that did not happen later. I should be interested to know whether the Labour party would be inclined to take serious measures against Labour-controlled authorities were they disposed—I am sure that they would not be — to disobey a Labour Government.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we had the restrictions on local government expenditure in the years she refers to, when she was a local authority councillor and I shared a similar position with my local authority, Conservative-controlled councils—we had a Labour Government—willingly accepted the economic restraints that we had to accept because that is what Conservatives do? We co-operated with the economic expenditure restriction that had to be imposed by a Labour Government, whereas now that we as a Government accept economic restrictions because of the circumstances, Labour-controlled authorities actively seek to thwart the intentions of the Government.

Mrs. Rumbold: That is exactly what happened. In fact, there were considerable rate penalties on Conservative authorities which tried to behave properly.
The matter of how interim rates have been set has been raised. Islington has told us that the way we are doing it is illegal and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should at least set an interim rate. He has always had that in mind and he has had meetings with eight of the authorities which sought such meetings in order that that could take place. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that we would certainly have been interested to meet Thamesdown had it made such an application, but, alas, it did not. It is known to the House that Newcastle has also agreed its limits following representations.

Mr. Wareing: rose— —

Mrs. Rumbold: The two remaining authorities made no such constructive representation. I shall come to Liverpool in a moment and I hope that I shall be able to deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) wishes to raise.
The matter of voluntary organisations and the voluntary sector has also been raised. I think that it is important to say a few words about that. One does not want voluntary organisations to be considered in any sense outsdie the consideration by local authorities for careful spending. Certainly the Government do not want to interfere in the local decision-making, in spite of what some Labour Members have said about the Government trying to set rates for local government. That is nonsense, and has nothing to do with rate limitation.
Every authority has the right to determine how and what its priorities are, and that also applies to voluntary

organisations. The Government are most anxious that the extremely valuable contributions made by voluntary organisations should continue and I hope that local government will, when it is considering its budget across the board, look at the voluntary organisations and the grants that they are given with the intention of trying to help to maintain their services. It is well known throughout the country that voluntary organisations provide an extremely efficient and effective service.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall give way when I have finished this section.
At present we are providing 75 per cent. of the transitional funding which is up to £12 million in addition to what the boroughs are spending within London. That amount, together with what is already being provided by London, makes £27 million under the Richmond scheme. I trust that that money will be sufficient to cover the voluntary organisations for which I hold as much regard as the Opposition Members who have spoken about that. I believe that that can be sustained.
It is noticeable that the amount of money which had ben spent by the Greater London council and the previous metropolitan county councils has been considerably increased during the past years. That means that there has been a great advance in the number of organisations.

Mr. Wareing: The hon. Lady has been talking about the need for local authorities to assist voluntary organisations. From where will Liverpool get the money to fund voluntary organisations? It is being rate-capped and its expenditure level is only 5·1 per cent. above GRE, yet the norm is 20 per cent.

Mrs. Rumbold: Liverpool's expenditure level has been increased by almost £10 million. Liverpool city council was selected for rate limitation on the basis of the best information available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he took his decision. That information was the budget which the council agreed on 14 June. We all know what nonsense that budget was. Had the council agreed on a different budget before my right hon. Friend took his decision on selection he would have had to take that into account. We cannot rewrite history.

Mr. Wareing: Liverpool did.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is impossible to take the step of totally rewriting history, even in the light of the hon. Gentleman's claims. I regret it, but that is the position.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided, after studying representations from all the authorities and looking at all the factors, that there was no outstanding issue that warranted delay. It seems to us that a rate should be set for all authorities and that interim limits would do no more than provide unsatisfactory bases for the budget decisions by these councils.
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend should have looked favourably on interim limits simply because of the uncertainty that abolition would bring to many London boroughs. It is equally true to say that interim limits would cause uncertainty and confusion. I think that one should leave the matter at that point.
Much play has been made of the issue of abolition for the GLC and for London boroughs, such as the eight which have been affected by the order. The matters which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey raised about


the councillors who are facing court cases brought by the auditor are not for the House because the auditor is an independent authority and further action will depend on the outcome of the cases.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government told my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that the issue arising in councils other than those affected by the court cases mean that figures on the losses incurred must be required for the electorate and the public at large before May. I hope that the hon. Lady will bring her good offices to bear in obtaining that information as soon as possible. We should be happy to co-operate in any way.

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is very helpful.
With all authorities, it is now possible to make accurate estimates of any additional costs, especially in London where the residuary body announced earlier today its levy and charges for the coming year. I believe that this will considerably reduce the burden on many of the councils which, when I saw them recently, were expecting and counting on higher charges.
In addition, there will be an extra advantage to London boroughs from the GLC's balances which will be distributed to rate-capped authorities just as much as to others. That particular bogy needs to be laid to rest immediately. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always said that abolition will have a neutral effect. It is clear from the figures that that is more than borne out by the facts. The Opposition fail to acknowledge that, within the grants system, these problems have been readily understood and incorporated. Islington and Hackney have grant-related expenditure per head of population of £571 and £556 respectively compared with GRE in Kingston and Bexley of £211 and £178 respectively. There is considerable evidence that the councils chosen for rate capping have been more than adequately selected.
Most hon. Members have understood perfectly that the local government elections, about which the Opposition talk so much as providing a mandate, are a little bit of a sham because the percentage of the voters taking up the opportunity to vote is low. They know that many people have no idea of what the council is doing. They have no reason to question, because they do not pay. They vote for the tissue of lies that the councils put around. How many people live in squalor because the councils do not carry out their obligations to tenants to repair and maintain and to sell houses when the tenants ask for that right? Howmany of those councils get votes by refusing to collect rents? How many councils fail to collect rent arrears, which are an absolute disgrace? There are £57 million-worth of rent arrears. The only exception among rate-capped authorities is Greenwich.
No one should try to tell me that those authorities have no money and cannot fulfil their obligations to the people in their areas. They choose to manage badly. The people in their authorities suffer as a result. For the sake of the ratepayers and innocent voters in those rate-capped authorities, I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 208.

Division No. 85]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Favell, Anthony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Galley, Roy


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hannam, John


Browne, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, J.


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hickmet, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hirst, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dunn, Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawler, Geoffrey






Lawrence, Ivan
Pollock, Alexander


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Porter, Barry


Lee, John (Pendle)
Portillo, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Powley, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Price, Sir David


Lester, Jim
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Renton, Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lord, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


McCrindle, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Macfarlane, Neil
Roe, Mrs Marion


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Scott, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Major, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Newton, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Normanton, Tom
Wall, Sir Patrick


Norris, Steven
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watson, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Watts, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wheeler, John


Parris, Matthew
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pattie, Geoffrey



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Tony Durant and


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mr. Francis Maude.




NOES


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blair, Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Ashton, Joe
Boyes, Roland


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm


Beith, A. J.
Buchan, Norman


Bell, Stuart
Caborn, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Campbell, Ian





Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cartwright, John
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clarke, Thomas
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clay, Robert
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David Gordon
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Loyden, Edward


Craigen, J. M.
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, Stan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McGuire, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Patchett, Terry


Freud, Clement
Pavitt, Laurie


Garrett, W. E.
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Golding, John
Prescott, John


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Gourlay, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Redmond, Martin


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hancock, Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rogers, Allan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howells, Geraint
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Hoyle, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Snape, Peter


Hume, John
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Steel, Rt Hon David






Stott, Roger
Wallace, James


Strang, Gavin
Wareing, Robert


Straw, Jack
Weetch, Ken


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Welsh, Michael


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
White, James


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Wigley, Dafydd


Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Wainwright, R.
Woodall, Alec





Wrigglesworth, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. John McWilliam and



Mr. Allen Adams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Local Government Reorganisation (Pensions)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Reorganisation (Designated Councils) (Pensions) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 96), dated 23rd January 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.

Mr. Roland Boyes: This is a simple order. It transfers to the designated councils the responsibility for certain pension and compensatory matters relating to the Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire county councils which, regrettably, are to be abolished on 1 April 1986. This can be done under the provisions of section 60 of the Local Government Act 1985 which states that on 1 April 1986 the superannuation function of each metropolitan county council becomes the function of the appropriate residuary body. Section 66 of the Act, however, allows the district councils to agree that, instead of the residuary body, one district in each area should discharge this function.
The Opposition do not intend to oppose this order. However, we have deliberately brought it on to the Floor of the House because there are certain questions that we wish to put, even at this late stage, to the Minister. The metropolitan counties require answers from him before they take certain actions.
Only five weeks are left before abolition. This is an important order, and more of them are to come. In evidence to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on 22 January 1986 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
There will be further orders. Others will be brought forward as quickly as the Department can deal with drafting, consultation and other preparation.
I am reliably informed that at least seven orders dealing with matters relating to the Greater London Council will have to be introduced in the few weeks that are left before abolition. I refer, for example, to the Thames Barrier and Flood Protection Act 1972 (Amendment) Order and also to an order dealing with the designation of individuals or groups of staff for transfer. Some quite important Orders have yet to be brought to the House.
At the conclusion of the Third Reading on the Bill to abolish the GLC and the six metropolitan counties, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said:
I must say that the Bill has been an extremely unhappy experience for many Conservative Members. It has been a dialogue of the deaf, and a case of the bland leading the blind."—[Official Report, 28 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 750.]
That was a stunning indictment of the contents of the Bill and the way in which the hon. Member's own Front Bench had in a cavalier and unconcerned way treatedthe arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is because of that attitude that we are now in the ludicrous position of discussing an order affecting a large number of people who work or previously worked for three of the metropolitan councils. We are only five weeks away from 31 March, the date for the final abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties.
I am sure that members of local government throughout the land will take note of the way in which this Government value their work. During the long hours in

Committee — something like 200 hours — my hon. Friends and I continually, but regrettably unsuccessfully, demanded answers to questions about the cost and staffing implications of abolition. We made it clear that each of the clauses in the Bill needed careful examination to avoid problems that would arise up to the abolition date. We argued that the badly drafted Bill needed a large amount of time in Committee to examine and explore the implications for the public and the staff. The Government, quite wrongly and vindictively, refused to allow the time needed. Instead of heeding our many warnings, the Government introduced a timetable motion. It was wrong then and it has proved wrong every time we have to consider an order like the one before us tonight.
During the debate on the timetable motion on 11 February 1985, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
First, the few Conservative Members who spoke seemed more concerned with the contents of the Strangers Gallery than with the contents of the Bill. We then had a series of repetitious speeches complaining about repetition in Committee, but, as the Leader of the House made clear, there was no repetition in Committee and no attempts to filibuster.
The then Minister for Local Government, now promoted to the post of Secretary of State for the Environment and, incidentally, carrying on where his predecessor left off, confirmed what my hon. Friend said when he said:
I readily agree that the Bill has not been delayed as a result of filibustering upstairs." — [Official Report, 11 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 112–4.]
I can only conclude from what has happened since that we in the Opposition were perfectly correct in asking for adequate time to consider the problems that would arise. Only a month or so ago the Local Government Reorganisation (Transitional Provisions) Order 1985, was debated in Committee. Such was the strength of feeling against the Government that the Committee divided 7:7 and the order was carried only on the casting vote of the Conservative Chairman.
In spite of the many problems inherent in the Bill, what have the metropolitan counties done and why? Some have reached no agreement at all about superannuation and its administration. Some have an agreement, but not the one that they wanted. I will explain that fully in a moment. Three of them have opted for a named district council rather than a residuary body, although, as I shall illustrate later, that was not necessarily the first choice of those councils.
Why have three of the metropolitan counties opted for a district council even though that was not necessarily their first choice? In an article in the Local Government Chronicle on 10 January, 1986 entitled "Co-operation in Re-allocation", Mr. Robert Hedley wrote about the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council of which my constituency is a constituent part:
the five district leaders quickly agreed their underlying philosophy: the Government appointed residuary body would have as little as possible to do other than close the accounts and perhaps dispose of property.
In another article in the same journal, Angela Holden wrote on 31 January 1986 about the approach to abolition in the west midlands. She wrote:
A fundamental principle, agreed immediately, was to keep as many functions in district hands as possible and lead authorities were established to re-organise the met county services.
The three metropolitan county councils which reached agreements with the district duly named the lead authorities to deal with, among other functions, the


superannuation matters of the staff. That I applaud. It leaves the issue in the hands of directly elected representatives rather than in the hands of a body that is selected and directly accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment which has only a limited life.
Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1985 refers to residuary bodies. It states:
Except as respects any of its functions for the discharge of which provision will be or is likely to be required after the end of the period of five years beginning with the abolition date, it shall be the duty of each residuary body to use its best endeavours to secure that its work is completed as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of that period.
It is clear that it was in the interests of the employees and former employees of the metropolitan county councils and of the public in general that the administration of their pensions and increases in pension rights should be in the hands of directly elected local government representatives. It is clear that the fund will have to be passed from the residuary body to another body on some other occasion in view of its short life. The sooner that it is passed to a successor authority the better, for that will eliminate uncertainty for all.
With only five weeks to abolition, it is disgraceful that some members of staff do not know whether they will be working for a residuary body or a district council. Indeed, they do not know whether they will face the ultimate humiliation of the dole queue after many years of service with a metropolitan county council. I regret that that is the fate of some of those who work in the pensions departments of the metropolitan county councils. Unfortunately, it is the destiny of thousands of those who are currently metropolitan county council and GLC employees.
I pose two questions that I consider to be critical for those who are currently employed by the metropolitan county councils and for those who will be administering the bodies that succeed them. First, is there any way of unscrambling the arrangements that are set out in the order so that joint committee-lead authority arrangements can obtain in Tyne and Wear, the west midlands and west Yorkshire eventually? I ask the question because the Tyne and Wear authority has a scheme whereby south Tyneside will have administrative responsibilities. The Tyne and Wear authority would have preferred something quite different. It would have favoured a voluntary joint committee with a lead authority providing administration and management.
The legal advice that was given to the officers of the Tyne and Wear authority—similar advice was given to other authorities—was that this was not possible under the 1985 Act. The function has to pass to the residuary body or to one district alone, albeit with a consultative committee. Therefore, the Tyne and Wear authority could not have its first choice, and it ended up with what it considered to be the best of the two options that remained. It is important that the county council and those who will be concerned with its functions after abolition should know whether it will be possible at some future date, especially after the function of the residuary body has come to an end, to proceed to the status that it first wished to obtain.
There was no problem in west Yorkshire about the superannuation function going to Bradford, as that was generally agreed among the five districts, with the addition

of an advisory body. In the west Midlands, the authorities, although happy with the present arrangement, had earlier discussed the possibility of a joint authority-lead district.
My second question revolves around the fact that three metropolitan county council areas are not included in tonight's consideration. For those areas, will the Government lay the necessary orders quickly to transfer the superannuation function from the residuary bodies to joint committees? Can that be done at the request of only a majority of districts in an area? I ask that, because unanimity is required on some issues.
Greater Manchester prefers a joint authority-lead area district. South Yorkshire is not included in the instrument, and the authorities there want the functiion to go to a joint authority-lead district and not to remain with only one authority. Merseyside can see no prospect of agreement, and in the earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland illustrated the problem in Merseyside in getting agreement, the districts being split three to two on all but one, rather ludicrous, issue.
Three metropolitan county councils will most likely end up with the residuary body, after which the residuary body will disappear, and then arrangements will have to be made to enable the superannuation arrangements to be administered. Other bodies, meanwhile, have reached agreement and wish to make alternative arrangements.
As I said at the outset, we shall not divide the House on this issue. It is essential that we explore these matters because they are vital to those who live in the areas that hon. Members have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will deal with the two important questions that I posed towards the end of my remarks.

Mr. Allen McKay: I have a question for the Minister, and in a way I hope that she will not answer it tonight. I say that because it would probably not be the answer I want, as the matter requires much thought, now that the abolition of counties is upon us.
When I asked the question previously I received what I would describe as a negative answer. While that answer may have been factually correct, I regarded it as morally wrong. The difficulty to which I refer can be put right when future instruments appear, especially that for south Yorkshire.
In the payment of redundancy, compensation or severance, a vast difference can occur among people in the same grades doing the same jobs, simply because of the date set for the cut-off point. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully because many people who come within tonight's instrument will be treated differently from those who will come within future provisions.
People can receive, say £20,000 compensation in one instance, yet because arrangements over and above the statutory minimum for compensation were not made in other instances, people—for example, this will apply in south Yorkshire —may receive only £9,000. I accept that the whole issue is complicated and needs great thought. I hope the Minister will ensure that people are treated equally.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I should like to


attempt to help the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and then to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
I was little surprised, at the start of this short debate, that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington suggested that the time allocated for discussion of the Local Government Act 1985 was inadequate, because he admitted that at least 200 hours of Committee time was spent on that measure. In fact, the parliamentary time allocated for that Bill was significantly more than that allocated either to the London Government Act 1963—which reorganised the whole structure of London government, creating the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the 32 London boroughs—and longer than the time given to the Local Government Act 1972, which restructured the whole of local government in the rest of England and Wales.
Throughout the discussion of the Local Government Bill, the Opposition have consistently refused to use the time to discuss the detailed provisions of the Bill, which I should like to discuss now in respect of the order. The Opposition continually repeated the same debate on the principle of abolition and they have little to complain about in terms of the time spent discussing the many issues involved in the Local Government Bill.
In the White Paper, in October 1983, setting out the Government's proposals for reorganising local government in Greater London and the metropolitan counties, we explained our attitude to the administration of the local government superannuation funds.
The Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils are administering authorities under the local government superannuation scheme. In the case of the metropolitan county councils, they also act as administering authorities in relation to the district councils in their area.
In the White Paper, we rejected the idea of making each district council in the metropolitan counties an administering authority for its own employees and pensioners. That would have meant splitting the existing funds, plus a large increase in the number of administering authorities. We felt that there were strong arguments on grounds of efficiency for not breaking up the funds, and for transferring the responsibility to a single body in each metropolitan county.
We took the view that, in the metropolitan counties, it should be possible for one of the district councils within a metropolitan county to take on the responsibility. In London, where the London borough councils are already the administering authorities under the local government superannuation scheme, responsibilities in relation to existing GLC pensioners could not be distributed to the boroughs. We proposed in this case that these responsibilities should go to the London Residuary Body.
In a document on abolition published in July 1984, we confirmed our intention to give the superannuation function in London to the Residuary Body. For the metropolitan counties, we said that we would still prefer the function to be taken on by one of the metropolitan district councils where the districts can reach agreement between themselves on such an arrangement. But to make sure that there would be adequate arrangements in case the districts could not reach agreement, we decided to draft the legislation in such a way that the task could be taken on by a district council or by a residuary body.
Accordingly, section 60 of the Local Government Act 1985 provides that the local government superannuation function shall pass to the appropriate residuary body on 1 April 1986. But section 66 allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the case of the metropolitan counties, to make an order designating a district council to assume that function instead. An order designating a district council can be made only where all the district councils within a metropolitan county agree.
Agreement on the designation of a district council has been reached in three of the six metropolitan counties. They are West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. In the three counties in which agreement has been reached among the district councils, the districts chosen to exercise the superannuation function were Wolverhampton, Bradford and South Tyneside. Applications for designation were made by those three councils and they explained how they proposed to exercise the function. The designation order which we are debating tonight provides for the local government superannuation function to go to those districts on 1 April.
The order makes provision for the way in which costs incurred by the designated councils in exercising the functions are to be borne. Costs which cannot be met from the superannuation funds will include pensions increase payments and existing county council liabilities for compensation for their former staff.
In so far as those costs are not otherwise chargeable to another authority, they will be split among all the district councils within the county. The basis of the apportionment included in the order is that agreed by all the districts concerned. In the case of Bradford and south Tyneside, it is on the number of pensionable employees of the districts within the local government superannuation scheme. For Wolverhampton, it is on a population basis in the same way that the costs of the residuary bodies will be apportioned. That was entirely a matter of choice.
The way in which those designated councils arrange to discharge that function must be for them to decide. Each of the councils is arranging for participation of the other districts within the county on the appropriate committee or investment panel which will be established. Each council is also naturally concerned to retain appropriate expertise of the county council's superannuation staff.
Our general policy on staffing in the abolition exercise has been that it is for the successor authority to decide whether to ask for staff to be transferred to it by order. In the event, the effect of a staff transfer order is that the staff concerned retain their existing terms and conditions. At the request of Wolverhampton and south Tyneside, most superannuation staff of the West Midlands and Tyne and Wear county councils are included in a staff transfer order which has been laid before the House. Bradford decided to recruit county staff and has sent letters offering posts to those involved. The county staff will be recruited on their existing salary, but they will have the same conditions of service as the Bradford council staff.
Those arrangements are bound to vary in the light of local circumstances, but I know that the districts are taking steps to smooth the transition. Bradford and Wolverhampton are, for example, arranging for superannuation work to remain at the county halls for the time being.
On the first question that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington asked, there is no provision for the function to go to another body where it is given to a


designated district council. District councils have been designated because all the districts in the county are agreed.
Where the district councils within a metropolitan county agree on one of their number having the superannuation function at abolition, the Government believe that it is right to provide for that, so we have provided in this designation order for Bradford, South Tyneside and Wolverhampton to assume the superannuation function on 1 April.
I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's second question. I have already explained the Government's view that the superannuation function of the metropolitan counties should be exercised by a single district. We do not favour the setting up of a joint committee which would, in effect, be a joint board. There are no powers in the Superannuation Act 1972 or in the Local Government Act 1985 to enable the superannuation function to be given to a joint committee of the districts on the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. At abolition, the alternatives are for the function to go to a designated district council or to the appropriate residuary body.
There is plainly a good deal for the designated districts to do to ensure that they can effectively take over the function. The continuing payment of pensions is clearly of the utmost importance. I have no reason to think that the plans of the district councils are not proceeding satisfactorily. I hope that the House agrees that that is the case.
I have taken note of the point that the hon. Member made, and if he will allow it, I shall write to him on that matter in due course. I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put and negatived.

Systime plc

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter of Systime plc of Leeds. I wish to set out at the beginning of my speech what I believe that the Government and the Minister should do. This will be the framework of the story of Systime plc and the Government's role in that story.
I believe there should be an urgent inquiry, perhaps under section 6 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 or any other appropriate statute, into the key issue of whether Digital Equipment Corporation, known as DEC, the United States Department of Commerce, officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise behaved legitimately in their dealings with Systime plc. The Government must act to make effective the express views of the Attorney-General on extra territoriality abuses by such companies as DEC. Urgent action is also required to enforce articles 30 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, which refer to the dominant position being abused by a company and of trade restrictions being permissible only if they are approved by the EC countries. These articles are clearly relevant to the Systime case. The law relating to patent and copyright requires urgent review to see whether vexatious legal action which significantly harms the continued viability of a smaller company can be inhibited.
Since I first embarked on this case, I have been overwhelmed with evidence. Indeed, the question has been what to leave out rather what to put in. I have also met briefly with representatives of DEC through the good offices of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who numbers DEC amongst his financial interests. The case that I put before the House has been assembled painstakingly from numerous sources and pieces of evidence. Within the time constraints of an Adjournment debate I cannot hope to cover every issue. Therefore, I will not deal with the vexed question of the use of legal action on alleged patent or copyright infringements to stop rivals trading. If this legal action is dragged out, it effectively put smaller competitors out of business. I will not deal in detail with the Co-ordinating Committee for Export to Communist Areas issue and the intricate problem of technology and the Eastern bloc countries—both issues are relevant.
I emphasise that I am in no way motivated by any anti-American spirit. In that respect I am at least at one with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the speech that he made at the weekend. There is a sense in which, in the longer term, what I am arguing for will help the United States and its broader role in the world. I am not motivated by any wish to score party debating points — if the circumstances had been different, the material could have ended up in any hon. Member's hands.
I am anxious to protect what jobs remain at Systime plc and I would urge the Government to use every means possible to assist the company's future. I do not wish to pretend that one side is all pure and the other entirely evil. Systime plc has its faults. The computer business is not for the faint hearts and no doubt there is some sharp practice in virtually every major deal. The regular movement of skilled managers and entrepreneurs between companies


makes the control of legitimate business confidentiality impossible. My case is simply that the odds are stacked against United Kingdom industry when it is under threat from the United States. The Government alone have the power to even up the balance and defend British industry.
I bring before the House the grave matter of Systime plc, at one time this country's second largest computer maker. That company, based in Leeds and drawing staff from all constituencies of Leeds, has reduced its payroll from 1,200 in 1984 to about 400 today. Those 400 jobs and the fate of a major high technology manufacturer and exporter are now in jeopardy. I have a series of sworn affidavits, letters from the American Embassy in London, and other documents which show that Systime's plight is mainly due to the illegal, improper and indecisive activities of three parties. Those parties are Digital Equipment Corporation — Systime's major American supplier and competitor — a number of American Government officials — some based at the London Embassy whom I shall name—and a number of officials and Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry.
The matter of Systime plc is not, as the Westland affair was, a matter of disclosure but rather a matter of law. Laws have been broken on a significant scale and frequently by those charged with upholding the law. It is not solely a commercial matter but rather of a question of legality. It involves a sustained breach of United Kingdom sovereignty, condoned by the Government—if only by default — and used as a weapon to destroy Systime. Within six years we have witnessed the destruction of a company.
I will describe Systime and its rival and supplier, DEC. Systime plc was an entrepreneurial company founded in Leeds by Mr. John Gow and others in the mid-seventies. Its major business developed around retailing of equipment purchased mainly from Digital Equipment Corporation, with additional parts and software. DEC, as Digital is known, is the second largest computer company in the world, based near Boston, Massachusetts. It built up its huge sales mainly by wholesaling equipment to companies, such as Systime, which then sold the equipment to end users.
In 1979, Systime's management discovered that it was about 25 per cent. cheaper to buy equipment direct from DEC in the United States than from DEC's subsidiary in the United Kingdom. DEC UK objected to the loss of profit that that implied, and persuaded DEC US to insist that equipment could be bought only from the subsidiary. Subsequently, when DEC US tried to break its contract with the Systime subsidiary in the United States, Systime's management commenced an anti-trust action in which the British Government took an amicus curiae position. DEC drew back and agreed to a partial continuation of supply. Systime appeared to have won a breathing space, but it was only temporary. That is apparently the only time that the British Government have openly defended Systime, and, significantly, the only time that DEC has drawn back.
In 1979, DEC UK, under its American manager, Mr. Darryl Barbé launched a formal campaign known as the "Kill Systime" campaign. He had the full support of the American management. The DEC president, Mr. Ken Olsen, was subsequently overheard leaving a board-level meeting with another company, declaring that he wished to see Systime out of business. Mr. Pier-Carlo Falotti, European vice-president of DEC, said to DEC staff:
I want you guys to go out and kill Systime.

DEC's most senior vice-president, Mr. Jack Shields, was regularly in the United Kingdom, supervising the events that I shall set out. Between 1980 and 1983, Systime grew rapidly, making sales to the British and United States Governments, and commencing the manufacture of ruggadised computers for the Ministry of Defence. Exports also grew to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
The British Technology Group, the Government's investment arm, and others invested heavily in Systime. By the end of 1982 the need for new cash to support the now rapid growth of the company became urgent. That was well known to DEC, which took unique and wholly improper advantage to destroy Systime.
Besides the openly declared "Kill Systime" campaign, there was a secret investigation conducted on DEC's behalf by a private detective agency, Network Security Services. I was told by one ex-DEC employee that Network Security Services "have contacts everywhere."
Recalling that we are dealing with a publicly funded company, I come next to a meeting between Systime, its bankers, Kleinwort, Benson, and representatives of the Government, including the Department of Trade and Industry and others, which took place on 19 January 1983 at Kleinwort, Benson's premises in London. Prior to the meeting, DEC's legal representative, Mr. Harry Small, of the solicitors, Linklaters and Nines, made, among others, the following allegations based on a report from Network Security Services. First, that Systime was illegally pirating DEC software on a large scale. Secondly, that Systime had exported no fewer than 400 DEC computers to the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc disguised as juke boxes. Thirdly, that Systime was involved in a series of other breaches of United States export regulations. Present at the meeting were all the Systime directors, Mr. Geoffrey Sterling, representing 10 Downing street and the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Stuart Bloc, representing the NEB and British Technology Group, and Mr. Bill Wigglesworth for the Department of Trade and Industry.
The DEC representatives made it plain that they intended to inform the United States Government of those matters. The implication was clear to intending investors and purchasers. The flotation effort failed, and a would-be takeover by STC failed which, no doubt, DEC intended should happen to any attempt to keep Systime going.
John Gow was concerned that there may have been some minor infringements, and so DEC was subsequently allowed to audit Systime's books, at Systime's invitation and expense. It was unable to produce any evidence for its more extravagant claims, and only a minor under-accounting for the key one. But Systime was doomed, though not adequately from DEC's point of view. The "Kill Systime" campaign continued.
Between 1983 and July 1984, DEC obtained Systime's crucial customer list, and it is alleged that Systime's offices in Washington DC were broken into or that staff were bribed. In Leeds, Systime's own shipping files were apparently raided and documents removed. Those two sets of documents, together with the report used in the 19 January 1983 meeting, were given to the United States department of commerce in Washington, which began an investigation of Systime. The Prime Minister wrote concerning the missing Leeds documents to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). She said that British Customs


were not aware of any documents which would be of assistance to them being removed from other companies by US Customs".
Note the use of the word "other". The Prime Minister refused to exonerate United States Customs from having illegally acquired documents. I assume that she refused to do so because she had good reason to believe that it was indeed United States Customs, or its agents, which raided Systime for the missing documents.
In July 1984, on advice from the United States Government, the United Kingdom Government instructed United Kingdom Customs to raid Systime in Leeds. It was United Kingdom Customs which discovered that the key shipping documents were not there. It took a little longer to discover that the key documents were in the United States being used as evidence against Systime by the Department of Commerce.
There were two American officials in the United Kingdom working with diplomatic status at the embassy who, according to letters in my possession, were involved in the case against Systime. The first is Mr. Jack Lacey, the head of a Customs team at the United States embassy, responsible for the de facto direction and supervision of the United Kingdom's own campaign against the export of high technology. The second was Mr. Timothy Deal, who was directly involved in the subsequent blacklisting of Mr. John Gow, the founder of Systime. Those two officials were, I believe, involved with DEC in the Systime case.
Based on DEC's report on the various illegally obtained documents, the United States Government found Systime guilty of violations of United States export laws. Systime was found guilty of exporting computer equipment from the United Kingdom to Pakistan, Iraq, South Africa and other destinations, without the permission of the American Government. Amazingly, it is now, and has been for some considerable time, an offence to ship high technology goods from the United Kingdom without United States Government export licences.
Systime was fined $400,000 and has had its domestic and export sales put under the direct control of the United States Department of Commerce. More important, and having a direct bearing on its fate, the company found it almost impossible to obtain supplies of equipment from any American supplier. It began to fall behind on orders. In the last eight weeks alone Systime, having waited months, has been refused United States Government permission to supply a multi-million pound computer order to West Germany from the United Kingdom.
In furtherance of this effort to eliminate Systime, DEC's private detectives have followed Systime personnel and placed their homes under surveillance. There are allegations in my possession of phone tapping, of breakins, and of pressure which directly or indirectly led, alas, to at least one suicide. Certainly, it would appear that Systime engineers have been followed to their customers' offices by DEC agents. Subsequently, those sites have been visited by DEC personnel under the guise of wishing to quote for a maintenance contract. The serial numbers of machines were then noted and the original American supplier to Systime was then pressured to discontinue supply.
In the same context, DEC has made use of improperly obtained Systime customer lists to canvass Systime's customers with, in DEC's words, a "rubber order book". What has the United States Commerce Department to say

about all this? Mr. Frank Deliberti, the manager of the compliance division of the United States Commerce Department said:
I am going to shut Systime down. I am going to issue an (export) denial order and shut them down.
In an internal document relating to exports from the United Kingdom, DEC states:
Digital UK must control the movement of the hardware, software and know-how"—
presumably people—
in the United Kingdom to ensure that DEC remains within the US and UK laws.
There is no United Kingdom law that requires anyone to control the movement of computers, software or the know-how in people's minds within the United Kingdom, but the fact that DEC can say it is the measure of the position we are now in the United Kingdom, as a result of the Government's failure to act to end the monstrous imposition of United States law on United Kingdom exports and even on United Kingdom citizens—a failure that has doomed Systime and many other less well known United Kingdom companies.
In the case of Systime I allege that, first, the company has been fatally damaged as the result of a sustained campaign, much of it illegal, by DEC, Secondly, that the most damaging facet of that campaign was the move by the United States Government against Systime based on laws that, according to our Attorney-General, are:
an infringement of United Kingdom jurisdiction and contrary to international law.
Thirdly, based on the Prime Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, and correspondence between Systime, the United States embassy and the Department of Trade and Industry, I further allege that the Government had specific knowledge of the illegal removal of documents from Systime in Leeds to the United States, the spurious charges against Systime by DEC's representatives prior to the 19 January 1983 meeting and the fact that those charges were being conveyed to the United States Government, the improper interference in United Kingdom domestic affairs of the two United States embassy officials, Mr. Jack Lacey and Mr. Timothy Deal and the fact that DEC's application against Systime of its internal export rules demonstrates prima facie evidence of multiple breaches of at least two articles of the Treaty of Rome, which the Government are legally bound to uphold — article 86, the abuse of a dominant position, and article 30, which prohibits barriers to trade other than those agreed by the EEC.
In a real sense, the Systime case is virtually closed. DEC has achieved its major objective and now owns Systime's lucrative maintenance contracts and, in a sense, has brought the evidence. The rest of the company, under CDC parentage, will depend on the success or otherwise of its S series computers. I wish it well. Ironically, even that success can be affected by DEC future policy.
The significance of this story is in its lessons. Why depend on a crystal ball for Westland, British Leyland or for other United Kingdom computer companies when the record exists? Virtually 20 years ago, Servan Schreiber wrote in his book "The American Challenge":
Current disjointed, nearsighted attempts at competition by individual European governments are inexcusable, and doomed to failure. Not only can we succeed, we must succeed. No area of industry can ever be independent if we rely on others for computers, hardware and software. If there is a battle for the future, it is the battle of computing.


Successive Governments have allowed battle after battle to the be lost. Whether the war is lost I know not, but I am sure that the Government must act as if there is still time. What are the Government going to do to protect our future and Europe's future?

11 pm

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) has said, Systime was founded in Leeds in the early 1970s. A vigorous and entrepreneurial approach to the market for integrated computer solutions brought it early success and rapid growth. By 1981 it had built up a turnover of more than £30 million and was employing some 1,200 people. Continued growth required expansion, so the company embarked on a major development at Millshaw park in Leeds to provide the room and the facilities to accommodate the very ambitious growth targets it had set itself.
Sadly, the completion of this development coincided with the onset of financial difficulties of the kind which can all too easily beset companies set on rapid growth. In short, the company found itself caught in the bind of a serious financial crisis requiring the injection of substantial new funds to keep it afloat. Fortunately, such funds were forthcoming from a number of sources, including Control Data Corporation, which took a substantial minority stake in Systime in 1983. It increased this to over 90 per cent. early in 1985 in the face of continuing financial difficulties, exacerbated by the downturn in the computer market generally. Since that time, CDC has continued to stand by the company while plans were put in place for a restructuring to match Systime's activities more closely to its available resources.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the broad lines of that restructuring were announced last November. Inevitably, it involves some cutbacks, which I regret as much as anyone else. But I believe that the plan represents a constructive response to the problems of the past few years and I am encouraged that there now appear to be good prospects of Systime continuing as a computer manufacturer in Leeds, with a sound in-house designed and developed product range. The opportunity is there, if all goes according to plan, for Systime to build on its strengths and experience in the market place to become once more a strong and growing force in the United Kingdom computer market.
I would not want to pretend that from this point everything will automatically be plain sailing. There is much work to be done to ensure that the signs of hope for the future which I have just described turn into real results. That will require all the company 's energies, and I am sure it is something to which the hon. Gentleman would want to give every support.
In this context, while I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the grave issues which he has brought before the House tonight, I hope that he will agree that it is very much in Systime's interest, and the interests of job prospects in Leeds, that we should not let the events of the past become a preoccupation or a drag on the major task that needs to be done to assure the future for the company. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he will put the interest of his constituents first in this matter.
I turn now to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I listened to what he had to say with great care. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a draft

copy of his speech which I very much appreciate. He said at the beginning of his speech that he had been "overwhelmed with evidence". That is precisely what I want to see. The hon. Gentleman has the right to raise any matter that he chooses in the House and I am perfectly happy to respond to it. I ask him whether he believes—he does not want me to put it in the terms of the best interests of his constituents—that in the best interests of the serious matters he has raised we should be considering them in the 29 minutes and 30 seconds that we have tonight. That is his decision.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that we had a brief conversation in which he said that he would wish to see me about this matter. He will recall that I said that I would be happy to see him, as I am. I must say—this is the most fundamental point that I can make on his speech—that I need evidence. The hon. Gentleman has made serious allegations about an American company, DEC, and about various named officials in the United States Government and about officials and Ministers, unnamed, in the British Government.
I should like to deal in the limited time I have available with DEC and the so-called "Kill Systime campaign". Systime is not the first company to have got into financial difficulties in going for rapid expansion.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pattie: I cannot give way. I am already taking up time in resisting the intervention. I should be delighted to debate with the hon. Gentleman at any time, but I am trying to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West said that the computer market is not for faint hearts. He would hardly need reminding that the commercial world is a hard and competitive one. Companies fight, and fight hard, to survive, and it should hardly be a cause for surprise if they seek to use every legitimate means to hand to promote their commercial interests. This is the hard practical world of commerce, operating quite justifiably within the law.
The hon. Gentleman makes allegations of improper and unlawful activity to drive home a competitive advantage —indeed, to finish off a competitor altogether. If this is true, it is a very serious matter and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence— not allegation, but evidence— that the law has been broken, I hope he will bring it forward so that appropriate action can be taken. However, I have to say that I have yet to see any evidence of unlawful activity by DEC in relation to Systime.
The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to possible breaches of the treaty of Rome. As he will know, this is a highly complex area, which is essentially the province of the European Commission. On receipt of the appropriate evidence, we shall consider it.
I turn to the subject of United States re-export controls. I begin by emphasising that we fully agree with the United States on the need to prevent the leakage of sensitive technology from the West. We fully support the multilateral controls of COCOM as the United States does. We see eye to eye with the United States on the need for such controls.
However, we object to United States controls on exports from third countries of goods including United States components or United States technology. Such


controls are extraterritorial, and the United Kingdom emphatically rejects the implied claim of the United States to jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. The Government have made their position crystal clear on this issue on many occasions. The United States is well aware that we do not accept the validity of its re-export controls, and that we believe the extraterritorial nature of those controls to be an infringement of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
We cannot, however, prevent the United States Government from seeking to apply their re-export regulations to United Kingdom companies. Moreover, we have to remember that United States companies may be prohibited from supplying sensitive goods and technology to an overseas company which breaches re-export controls and that such goods and technology are often not available from anywhere else. The United Kingdom's policy is therefore normally to allow companies to make a commercial decision about whether to comply with United States re-export controls, although we of course, stand ready to take up individual cases with the United States Government, and to do all we can to help in such cases.
When Systime was alleged in 1983 to have breached United States re-export controls by the United States Department of Commerce, the company admitted certain breaches and made it clear that it did not wish the United Kingdom Government to become involved. It preferred to handle the issue itself. This was rightly a factor that weighed heavily with the United Kingdom Government, given that the commercial interests of the company were at stake.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this issue and his motives in raising it in tonight's debate, but Government action would, in Systime's view, not have been in the best interests of the company, which had to live, after all, with the commercial reality of a need for continued supplies from the United States. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would really claim that he knows better than the company what its interests were. It was Systime's view that its best course of action lay in negotiating directly with the United States Department of Commerce. The Government would have had to think very seriously before overriding the company's judgment on a matter which could affect its future.
The hon. Gentleman also made allegations in his speech about Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry. I entirely reject any suggestion that either Ministers, who were unnamed, or officials, who were named, have behaved improperly, or that the Government have been in any way involved in illegal acts. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I will most certainly investigate it. If not, I hope that he will not make any further such allegations.
The hon. Gentleman also made allegations about unauthorised visits by United States officials to Systime. The United States authorities are well aware of the United Kingdom's view that investigations within the United Kingdom may take place only with the prior approval of the Government and on whatever terms we may lay down. Her Majesty's Customs is not aware of any visit by United States customs officials to Systime.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I recognise and appreciate the concern of the hon. Member about the affairs of Systime.

He has made a series of allegations, which I take seriously, including serious allegations of illegal conduct. But if he has evidence of illegal activity he should bring it to the attention of the responsible authorities so that suitable action may be taken.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister said that Systime did no wish the United Kingdom Government to intervene during its problems in 1983. That was the time when the company was trying to negotiate with companies in America which might finance it but which took a different view from Systime about where its future lay. Systime believed that it would be possible to come to a financial arrangement with DEC over alleged infringements, which in the end proved impossible. The result was that at the time Systime believed that it would be better for the Government to keep out.
Regarding the Minister's point about bringing forward evidence, I shall do so, but the important thing is to air the matter in this way so that the case is on the record. We can go from there with all the various details that may be useful to the Minister in pursuing an important matter.

Mr. Pattie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the matter is important. It is for him to judge, with his greater local knowledge, the best interests of the company and of his constituents and those of other hon. Members representing Leeds. If he chooses to raise the matter in this way, he is perfectly entitled to do so. I was not seeking to be gratuitously offensive. I was simply making the point that the matter is sufficiently serious to question how the matter should be first raised.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister asked for evidence in support of the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). Perhaps I can direct him to consider an internal DEC document which states:
Digital-U.K. must control the movement of the hardware, software and know-how in the U.K., to ensure that DEC remains within U.S. and U.K. laws.
I also direct the Minister to the Attorney-General's letter to me, which states that such actions
are unwarranted encroachments on UK jurisdiction and are contrary to international law.
That is the legal position, so why are the Government doing nothing about it? What will the Minister do to protect not Systime—because it may be too late for that company—but other British firms to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, which may be equally suffering from what the Attorney-General considers to be illegal action?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman has already heard my view. I do not believe that he would like a series of pyrrhic victories in terms of taking matters to the international court, or whatever international jurisdiction may be available.
However, in the absence of evidence, I believe that the better course is not to continue to dwell on past issues regarding Systime but to concentrate on what has to be done to develop its future. I hope that all hon. Members will co-operate and agree that that is the best way to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o' clock.